FDA’s Indifferent Attitude Towards the First Amendment

The FDA doesn’t care about the First Amendment rights of the companies it regulates. It cares even less about the “free speech” rights of those companies’ sales and marketing representatives.

And why should the agency care? One of FDA’s primary missions is to protect the public health and safety of the American people from illegal, adulterated and misbranded products. Doing so involves restraining food, drug, device and cosmetics companies from committing fraudulent and deceptive acts that are not protected by companies’ commercial free speech rights.  

Nonetheless, FDA Matters envisions opportunities for FDA and industry to broaden permissible product communications. The key is understanding history, not constitutional law.

--------------------------------

I recently participated in a forum at American University Washington College of Law on “Evolving First Amendment Protection of Commercial Speech” and offered up my mantra that constitutional analysis is largely irrelevant from FDA’s perspective. I said “largely” because FDA is still part of the federal government and can’t act arbitrarily. On the other hand, the agency mostly operates within the zone in which government is given the most leeway: where public health and safety is at stake and the threat is from commercial (as opposed to individual) speech.

History, not constitutional law, provides the best explanation. The sale of bad food and drugs—often accompanied by slick, deceptive pitches—goes back millennia and was even addressed as a problem in most ancient legal codes.

FDA’s own birth comes from a time when state regulation and inspection of food and drugs was minimal, inconsistent and often corrupt. It is hard for any of us to imagine what an unregulated market in food and drugs is like.  Yet, it is not so long ago.

The 1938 Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act gained popular support in part because of a traveling exhibit that portrayed the death and disability that resulted from patent medicines, counterfeit products, false medical and scientific claims, and adulterated and misbranded products. Lax to non-existent cosmetics standards were particularly singled out for their role in causing burns and blindness, as well as some deaths.

It is nice to imagine that this world is behind us, just an interesting piece of history. But it isn’t.

No industry regulated by FDA is immune from shoddy products, false claims, unscrupulous behavior and greed-induced threats to public health and safety.  I am sure that none of my readers count themselves among these “bad guys,” but they exist in the U.S., as well as globally.

Further, even the great and innovative companies—household names that we view with great trust—have often proven to be quite fallible. A certain amount of informal off-label promotion of drugs and devices is rightfully ignored--when good studies have been published, when the off-label indication is very close to an approved use, when assertions are made with great care about the extent of proven scientific knowledge.

In contrast, most of the off-label promotions that have resulted in billion dollar settlements with big-name drug companies have not been based on such close questions. Nor have they been the result of an individual salesperson crossing the line in some excess of enthusiasm.

Rather, the off-label promotions have been the product of marketing departments and sales managers who encouraged, empowered, or authorized the off-label promotion. There never seems to be a good answer as to who was supervising marketing and sales, which is why so many drug companies are now operating under government-negotiated corporate integrity agreements.

From FDA’s perspective, there are legitimate, well-documented reasons to scrutinize all companies: none are immune from the impulse to over-hype products to expand markets and sales beyond what FDA has approved. This is not a matter of FDA being over-fussy. It is the inevitable conclusion from about 4000 years of human commerce in food and drugs.

In the face of this, the First Amendment really has very little place. Commercial free speech does not extend to misleading statements, blatant fraud, or deception. FDA sees too much of this to ignore. 

FDA Matters believes the agency still has an obligation—but not a constitutional one--to clarify its standards, provide published guidance, and demonstrate acceptance that the Internet has fundamentally changed the nature of product promotion. The lack of FDA guidance on social media (first raised at an agency hearing 15 years ago) is particularly outrageous and the agency’s tendency to create de facto policy with enforcement letters is an abdication of responsibility.

The drug and device industry can also improve the situation. They need to stop looking at the current controversies in product promotion as noble causes involving sacred constitutional rights. If these industries have a claim to better treatment and clearer policies, it needs to be grounded in the contributions they make to improve public health and evidence of serious efforts to rid their companies of unscrupulous promotional practices.

Steven

I have written previously on some of the issues in drug and device promotion, as well as about opportunities for FDA and industry to reach accommodation:

Off-Label Promotion: Best Resolved by Congress, Not Courts     December 2012

On December 3, a federal appeals court ruled against one of the FDA’s untouchable restrictions on industry—thou shalt not promote the off-label use of pharmaceutical products. An industry that is little interested in constitutional law suddenly finds itself talking about the First Amendment. At stake: permitting off-label promotion undercuts the incentive for companies to thoroughly investigate the safety and efficacy of a drug for a second or third use.

Off-Label Uses Need to Become On-Label Indications  December 19, 2009

A friend asked: what advice would you give a pharmaceutical company in the late stages of developing a new product that will be widely used off-label? The company’s concern was that FDA might hold the first use to a very high, perhaps unrealistic standard to protect patients that might receive the drug off-label after approval.

Internet Communications: FDA Needs to Divide the Issues to Conquer the Problem  Dec. 2nd, 2009.

Creating an Internet communications policy for regulated medical product companies is so daunting that FDA has largely ignored the responsibility. November’s FDA hearing on social media was an important step, but offered no sign that new policy will be announced anytime soon. FDA needs a different approach. This is not a matter of a large, complicated problem with many facets. Rather, it is a number of smaller problems that can be addressed separately. 

Off-Label Promotion and Whistleblowing    September 9th, 2009

Whistleblowing and off-label promotion of drugs and devices have become hot topics because of the September 2 Pfizer settlement with the federal government. While none of my views are specific to Pfizer, the company’s settlement provides an opportunity to comment on off-label promotion….and to encourage bio-pharma and medical device companies to engage in deeper soul-searching. 

A Salmon on Every Plate/The Hard Road of Innovation

Chicken was once an expensive delicacy. In 1928, America’s quest for a better diet and a better standard of living was summarized by the campaign promise of “a chicken in every pot.” Today, chicken is a ubiquitous, low-cost source of protein, which we largely take for granted. Despite depletion of ocean-based stocks, fish hold similar potential.

To begin this transformation, FDA must approve a scientifically-based innovative product—a faster growing genetically-engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon. When FDA Matters wrote about this subject 18 months ago, I believed the agency was near to approval of this first-ever food product from a GE animal. It is still not resolved and there are implications for all innovations that require FDA approval.

Final comments on the “environmental assessment” of GE salmon are due to FDA in April. Hopefully, this is the final procedural step before a decision. Approval could come mid-year or may take months or may not happen at all. The agency is still dealing with the political fall-out of questionable safety claims from environmental groups…and politicians and companies trying to protect the market for Pacific salmon.

The health benefits of fish are well-known. They are also a valuable source of dietary protein. However, our oceans are over-fished and aquaculture is now the source of almost 50% of the fish consumed worldwide. Expanding the availability of fish products meets a growing demand and is an important component of improved nutrition for Americans.

The proposal before FDA is for a genetically-engineered salmon that is biologically and chemically identical to the Atlantic salmon that is served in restaurants and at our own tables. The only difference is the inclusion of a Chinook salmon gene that provides the potential to grow Atlantic salmon to market size in about half the time.

Opponents have labeled the product as “Franken-fish.” It’s a catchy slogan that tries to devalue over a decade of scientific research and undercut many years of FDA review. Ultimately, the appeal is to emotion—that something dramatically new and different must automatically be dangerous. At some point, scientific review and product safeguards should be sufficient for FDA to make a decision that is based on facts and not fears.

Decisions about new and different products are hard for FDA, as I wrote in a column entitled: “FDA and Things that Might Go Bump in the Night.”  Among other things, I reminded readers that in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, biotechnology was subject to the same types of concerns and evaluation as FDA is currently giving nanotechnology, GE food and synthetic biology. While there are risks to saying “yes” to innovation, there are also potentially large consequences to saying “no.” Imagine today’s world without biotechnology.

Approval of genetically-engineered animals will always require serious consideration of safety, environmental and ethical issues.  In this case, no one questions the legitimate demands for plentiful, high quality supplies of salmon. Further, the sponsor has agreed upon multiple redundant safeguards. For example, the GE salmon will be sterile females and grown in inland fisheries without access to either wild or farmed salmon stocks.

And yet, the years have piled up, waiting for FDA to be ready to say “yes” or “no” to GE salmon. This isn’t intended as a complaint about FDA…it’s really more of a reminder for the rest of us that a pro-innovation culture at FDA requires hard work from stakeholders.

Scientifically-based, well developed applications are a must. Those of us who support innovation must also make common cause. This is both policy-driven (e.g. by supporting development of regulatory science) and procedural (e.g. not complaining too loudly when FDA takes a somewhat longer deliberative path than we might like).

Further, brave thoughtful decisions by FDA are easier if they are met by public and stakeholder support. GE salmon may be a food, but FDA’s decision affects the environment in which drug, vaccine, and device innovation are also being judged.

Thus, the current fight is not just about “a salmon on every plate.” It is also about whether FDA has the resources and support to sort through the many “alternative futures” represented by the products submitted for its approval.

Steven

More information about salmon, aquaculture, regulation of genetically-engineered foods and the current controversy can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/ucm222635.htm and http://www.aquabounty.com/PressRoom/#l7

A final note: I almost never write about or even mention individual products because FDA Matters’ aim is to analyze and comment on policy, regulation, and FDA trends.

This column is an exception because I believe that FDA’s consideration of GE salmon is an important part of understanding the agency’s role in innovation and how such decisions can become far more difficult that they should be. I have no clients or financial interests in development of GE food products.  On the other hand, a salmon dinner is a favorite.

The State of the FDA---February 2013

FDA is the only federal agency that touches the lives of every American several times every day. Despite this, FDA will probably not be mentioned when President Obama delivers his State of the Union (SOTU) address to Congress on February 12.

Instead, FDA Matters provides its third annual “State of the FDA.” As reflected in last week’s column, I think that FDA did well in 2012. And 2013 is very promising. Potential funding cutbacks are the primary impediment to future successes.

Strengths. Once again, FDA’s most important strength is the dedication of the agency’s staff.   Last year, I viewed staff’s efforts as invisible and largely unappreciated. I believe that more recognition is being given to the staff—driven by a banner year for drug approvals, progress on implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), and the narrowing of the FDA-industry chasm on medical devices.

Another key strength is a growing self-confidence within the agency that it can solve problems and not just tread water to survive. Over the years, FDA has often spent extended periods in a bunker posture—harassed, defensive, waiting to be forced to act, speaking too softly for fear of unleashing criticism.

Over the last year or so, there appear to be many more instances where the agency has taken the initiative. To be sure, they have talked to stakeholders and checked in with experts first, but then they have acted by making an announcement, releasing guidelines, creating new policies or intervening to solve a problem. 

Both of these strengths have been heightened by continuity of leadership. In May, Commissioner Hamburg will have held the job for four years, the longest tenure of a commissioner since the mid-1990’s. It also feels like there have been fewer top-level personnel changes. In the past, constant changes have undercut achievement and sapped morale and self-confidence.

Weaknesses. Congress has given FDA an ever larger role without providing the funds to do the job. As a result, and despite the agency’s best efforts, important initiatives and activities are not getting the resources they need. Inadequate funding is the most pressing weakness of FDA.

There are really three parts to the problem:

• three new laws over the last three years need to be implemented: food safety (FSMA), biosimilars (BPCIA) and user fee amendments (FDASIA).
• Congressional pressure to do more in complex, expensive areas, such as medical innovation, safety, medical countermeasures, track and trace/counterfeit products, drug shortages and compounding.
• FDA’s job is getting bigger, tougher and more resource-needy each year independent of whether Congress gives them new responsibilities. This emanates from greater scientific complexity, industry globalization, and increased workload (meetings, NDA’s, etc).  

 As will be discussed further under “threats,” there is a strong potential for cuts in funding that would take FDA far below even the current inadequate level.

Opportunities. Dr. Hamburg has made it a priority to improve the agency’s scientific bench strength—better credentials, better training and better tools. The next step—still very much a work in progress—is to integrate patients and human concerns into FDA decisionmaking.  

The agency understands the importance of this opportunity, but underestimates the tension between patient viewpoints and the scientific process. The task is more nuanced than current efforts suggest….and the risk is that patient-input becomes a box that gets checked, rather than a meaningful improvement to the agency’s science-based decisionmaking. 

In a different vein, FSMA is a well-conceived solution to achieving a safe food supply in the 21^st century. The opportunity is enormous, the blueprint largely drawn, and only the inadequacy of funding a substantial barrier to success. I don’t know if the American people will ever properly appreciate the effort required by FSMA or the value its implementation adds to protecting the food supply. Without that public feedback and support, the challenge for FDA will be to continue to see FSMA as the transformative opportunity it is.

Threats. The largest threat to FDA is the potential for immediate and long-term cuts to the resources available to the agency. On March 1, FDA may lose more than 5% of its current-year funding. Even if that cut is averted, funding for domestic discretionary programs is going to be under pressure for the next decade.  

The increasing reliance of user fees for agency funding is also a threat. Including tobacco and the new generic drug user fees, the FDA is now 40% funded by industry. Those fees are put to good use and are not, by themselves, a problem. Rather, American taxpayers need to preserve--if not actually increase--their stake in funding FDA. There are philosophic reasons for this (the integrity of the agency) and practical ones (a large part of FDA’s mission cannot appropriately be funded by industry).

Conclusion. FDA’s strengths and opportunities are immediate and powerful...perhaps more so than in many years. The challenge is to preserve and expand the funding, particularly taxpayer funding, to support the agency. Trying to “do FDA on the cheap” is both a weakness and a threat to the agency and the American people.

Steven

FDA Post-Election: Continuity and Progress Likely to Mark 2013

Looking back over the last 40 years at FDA (as I have), there are three characteristics that create a more progressive environment at the agency: continuity of leadership, presidential support, and increased funding. For FDA in 2013 (as the saying goes): 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

In particular, medical innovation seems poised to flourish in an FDA environment where there is continuity of policy and leadership, instead of a new team learning the ropes. I explore this and other themes in the latest issue of Pharmaphorum.com. You can read my thoughts at: http://www.pharmaphorum.com/2013/01/29/fda-post-election-continuity-and-progress-likely-to-mark-2013/.

Steven

President Obama, Please Retain Commissioner Hamburg

With President Obama’s re-election, many people are sitting back and assuming that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) won’t change much. In FDA Matters’ view, it doesn’t need to: Commissioner Hamburg is doing a good job; the agency is moving forward to improve food, drug and device safety; more rational and predictable review processes are being implemented; and there are at least three relatively new laws that need ongoing attention.

However, year five of an incumbent presidency almost always involves changes in personnel and policies, not the continuity one might expect. FDA may not be touched, but it seems short-sighted to think there won’t be any changes. And that could start at the top with Commissioner Hamburg.

The unwritten rule of senior political appointees is that you leave by the end of year three or you wait until after the election. Thou shalt not create vacancies during the campaign!

So, the list of who might be leaving now or over the next few months includes everyone who would have left anytime in the last year. There have been rumors that Commissioner Hamburg fits into this category….and equally plausible rumors that this is nonsense. Don’t ask me the answer on this; I have no idea. She may want to stay or she may have had enough of the job.

Then there is the matter of President Obama’s preferences. While those departing will be going to specific jobs or to pursue new (unspecified) opportunities, some will be truly voluntary departures and some will have been pushed out the door. At the moment, the focus is on Secretary of State (Hilary Clinton having said long ago that she would leave after the election) and other very high visibility jobs.

The next rung (individuals such as Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius) and the rung beyond that (FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg) will be playing out over the next two to eight months. Each individual will be evaluated—at least informally—and decisions made as to whether they fit into the President’s second term plans.  I would presume that they do fit—and that Secretary Sebelius and Commissioner Hamburg are welcome to stay if they want.

However, unless you have been at the table when White House, HHS and FDA have interacted AND been party to conversations among White House staff as to who they count on and trust, then you really have no idea what President Obama’s intended or evolving  position will be on the continuation of Commissioner Hamburg.  There are always surprises about who will be part of the second term team. Presuming a continuing role for Hamburg is just that—a presumption.

As stated at the outset, I hope that Commissioner Hamburg wants to stay and that President Obama chooses to keep her.  There are positive, agency-affirming reasons supporting this.

In contrast, the Commissioner’s departure, for whatever reason, would be bound to have negative consequences for the agency. Her successor, regardless of the quality of his/her credentials, would face a U.S. Senate confirmation hearing that is likely to be painful. To appreciate why requires an understanding of the confirmation process and its true goal.

The vast majority of Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation are clearly qualified to carry out the duties of the position for which they have been nominated. If competence were the primary criteria, then most nominees could be approved with just a staff-level review of their record and positions and an FBI check for character and national security.

Why hold confirmation hearings? In most cases, the purpose is for members of the Senate (acting on their own behalf, as well as those of various stakeholders) to restrict the appointee’s discretionary decisionmaking once in office. In the case of a newly-appointed FDA commissioner, that would mean running a gauntlet of questions about product approvals, medical device policy, unrestricted access to plan B “day-after” contraceptives, how to name biosimilars, etc.

A talented nominee can fend off most of the hardest questions with non-committal answers. However, at the end of the process (when the nominee is confirmed) they are certain to have provided a number of answers that restrain their ability to make the best medical and public health decisions.  Equally important, a new Commissioner will mean a new leadership team and an extended learning curve.

For the FDA, this IS the time for continuity. Let’s hope that Commissioner Hamburg and President Obama will deliver it.

Steven

A version of this article appeared in the December 3, 2012 online edition of Scrip Regulatory Affairs.

“Governing,” Not “Campaigning,” Key to Post-Election FDA

Since last week’s two columns on “FDA After the Election” (here and here or a combined version here), FDA Matters has been treated to some wild speculation about what will happen next. I have been told, in effect, that “if Obama is re-elected, there will be massive new industry regulation” and also that “if Romney is elected, FDA will be transformed into a non-entity that only says ‘yes’ to industry.”

What history tells us is different: whoever wins will have the burden of governing. As a result, massive new regulation is no more likely than FDA becoming a toothless regulatory agency. Winners, it turns out, spend a lot of time explaining why campaign promises haven’t been translated into action.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion—particularly to imagine their own worst fears.

My advice, however, is to pour a glass of your favorite beverage (alcoholic or not) and watch the election returns with the calm that is appropriate for democratic elections in the United States. Our Founding Fathers intentionally created a system of checks and balances that limits the ability of any one party or any one election to radically re-create government institutions.

FDA is one of those institutions that is changeable (which is actually a good thing), but not likely to be transformed into something dramatically different.

If Obama Wins.  Year 5 of an incumbent President almost always stresses changes in personnel and policies, rather than continuity.  The focus will shift toward new ways of dealing with budget and fiscal matters, jobs and unemployment, and stabilizing our nation’s global position while winding down our involvement in Afghanistan.  Implementing ObamaCare will likewise be a key priority, as major provisions of the law go into effect over the next few years.

While Obama’s focus will follow the campaign promises, the specific actions will probably not. Most likely, he will still be dealing with a hostile House of Representatives and a sharply divided Senate. Events will occur that will also reshape what happens—something unforeseeable like 9/11 or Hurricane Sandy or something foreseeable like a massive fight over the next extension of the federal debt ceiling.

Given this larger picture, what is the probability that FDA will suddenly turn regulation-happy and start a major push to burden industry? I say “none at all.” The entire tenor of Commissioner Hamburg’s tenure—public statements and actions—has been to try to create more science-based decisionmaking, publish more guidances for industry, and to listen to both Congress and industry about FDA’s role in supporting medical innovation.

If there is more regulation in 2013 and 2014, it will be largely to satisfy the legal requirements of new laws passed by Congress on a bi-partisan basis over the last three years. If that winds up feeling excessive to industry, it will certainly not be because of President Obama's philosophy.

If Romney Wins. Year 1 of a new President is inherently one of change—but remembering back to four years ago, one could argue that the predominant motif is uncertainty, not change. If Governor Romney is elected, there will be a continuous stream of speculation. Nobody knows…and those fearing the worst will get the most attention.

A newly-elected President Romney will actually be dealing with the same issues as President Obama would be: budget and fiscal matters, jobs and unemployment, foreign policy and implementing (or failing to implement) ObamaCare.  FDA will be very low on the list of priorities—if it appears at all. (A conclusion also reached by Matthew Herper of Forbes).

What changes should we expect with a Romney victory and when will we know? The answer is nothing too dramatic and it will take months to play itself out.

I have argued that a Romney Administration would do best to find a well-known, well-respected, candidate who could win easy Senate confirmation. Taking me at my word, Ed Silverman in a Pharmalot column has suggested that Romney could nominate a well-respected commissioner to cut back on safety and speed up approvals (i.e. carry out Romney’s campaign promises and please industry). However, Senate confirmation will not be easy for such an individual—regardless of how well respected—unless they commit to fairly specific boundaries for such changes. (If Romney wins, you will be hearing much more about this in future columns).

If you are an American citizen, please take the time to vote.

Steven

FDA After the Election---Part 2: Leadership and Change

Apart from an occasional reference, FDA is not part of the campaign dialogue leading up to the November 6 nationwide U.S. election. Yet, FDA Matters believes that FDA will be strongly impacted by the election’s outcomes.  Part 1 of “FDA After the Election” concentrated on the agency’s budget situation.

Part 2 of “FDA After the Election” focuses on leadership and change--directly and as they may be affected by potentially large budget cuts. There are some predictable elements, but other elements with great impact may depend upon the perspective of those in power for the next two years and beyond.

Drivers of Change, Post-Election.  Whether President Obama is re-elected or Governor Romney becomes President-elect, FDA’s primary responsibilities remain roughly the same: to be the guardian of food, drug and device safety and to provide a reasonable and responsible pathway for pre-market review of drugs and devices. Likewise, no President has the power to alter the main drivers of FDA’s increasing workload: globalization, scientific complexity, growing regulated industries and new legislative and regulatory mandates in food safety, drugs and devices.

Historically, change at FDA is affected by:  

• the interest level of the President (most Presidents aren’t interested in FDA),
• a growing or shrinking agency budget  (budget cutbacks distract, reduce options),
• an acting vs. a confirmed Commissioner (“acting’s” tend to be placeholders),  and
• the political will of Congress (legislation, oversight/investigations, or indifference).

If President Obama is Re-elected….then the two main drivers of change are likely to be whether Commissioner Hamburg decides to stay and the federal budget situation.  

This chart explores the variables and draws some conclusions about the opportunities for change. Not surprisingly, they are greatest if Dr. Hamburg stays and there is no sequester. The worst case would be a sequester and a long-term “acting” commissioner; it is only a slight exaggeration to suggest the agency would be set adrift and some panic might set in.

President	Commissioner	Most like what prior situation?	Budget Status	Opportunities for change
Obama Year 5	Hamburg	Kessler 1993-1994	No sequester	Change continues
			Sequester	Orderly retreat?
	New nominee	Von Eschenbach    2006-08	No sequester	Orderly transition: some change
			Sequester	Disorderly retreat?
	“Acting” for >  than 6 months	Crawford 2004-05	No sequester	Orderly transition: few changes
			Sequester	Agency set adrift?

If Governor Romney is Elected…..then the main drivers of change are likely to be his interest level (his plate is likely to be full elsewhere), how quickly he nominates a new commissioner, how controversial his nominee is, and the federal budget situation.

This chart (as the one above) explores the variables and draws some conclusions about the opportunities for change. The best situation would be a well-known, well-respected, candidate who could win easy confirmation. That person would have the opportunity to make a lot of changes—although there would be notable differences if a new commissioner faces budget cuts. The worst case for change would be a replay of 2001-2002, when President Bush allowed more than 18 months to go by without a commissioner in place.

President	Commissioner	Most like what prior situation?	Budget Status	Opportunities for change
Romney Year 1	New nominee easy to confirm	Hamburg  2009-2010	No sequester	Time to shake the place up
			Sequester	Accelerates shake-up?
	New nominee  hard confirmation (not “acting”)	None?	No sequester	Congressional constraints in exchange for confirmation?
			Sequester	How long is someone acting?
	“Acting” for >  than 6 months	2001-2002	No sequester	Confusion: who to serve?
			Sequester	Panic in the streets?

Timeframes.  While the charts provide a more comprehensive overview of the prospects for leadership and change at FDA, the scenarios will actually unfold over a period of months. Presumably, we will know who will be President within a day or two of the election. However, sequester (or other budget cuts) are not likely to be determined until later this year or may be delayed into next year.

Whether Dr. Hamburg stays will be both her decision and that of President Obama. That might be announced quickly or not.  If there is to be a Romney Administration, it is likely to be at least March 2013 (more likely later) before a nominee is announced.

Steven

FDA and the Republican Platform: Harsh Words, Unclear Intent

Between “the FDA today” and the “FDA in 2013” stands a U.S. presidential election—one that appears to offer Americans a choice of philosophy about the size of government and the role of regulatory agencies.  FDA Matters’ previous blog laid out some very early comparisons between the candidates on regulatory policy and the role of Commissioner.

Along with nominating Mitt Romney as its Presidential candidate, this past week’s Republican Party convention produced the party’s 2012 Platform --a series of policy positions to guide the campaign. FDA reform commands about 180 words—laying out the case for aggressive (although unspecified) changes.

Campaigning vs. Governing. Before looking at the specific words and thoughts in the Republican Platform, it is worth providing some context. One of the enduring lessons of my 50 years watching American politics is that there is often a profound difference between campaigning and governing. The Platform is put together by party delegates from every state, working with subject-matter experts and overseen by the Presidential nominee’s team.

Mitt Romney would not allow a party platform with which he disagreed. However, should he be elected, he will not feel bound by the positions taken in it. That said, the Platform’s words on FDA reform appear to generally reflect other things that Mr. Romney (and his surrogates) have said on other occasions.  What he will want to do about FDA if elected (or even what he will be able to do) is unknown.

The 2012 Republican Platform on FDA Reform. The  platform report states:

America’s leadership in life sciences R&D and medical innovation is being threatened. As a country, we must work together now or lose our leadership position in medical innovation, U.S. job creation, and access to life-saving treatments for U.S. patients. The United States has led the global medical device and pharmaceutical industries for decades. This leadership has made the U.S. the medical innovation capital of the world, bringing millions of high-paying jobs to our country and life-saving devices and drugs to our nation’s patients. But that leadership position is at risk; patients, innovators, and job creators point to the lack of predictability, consistency, transparency and efficiency at the Food and Drug Administration that is driving innovation overseas, benefiting foreign, not U.S., patients.

We pledge to reform the FDA so we can ensure that the U.S. remains the world leader in medical innovation, that device and drug jobs stay in the U.S., that U.S. patients benefit first from new devices and drugs, and that the FDA no longer wastes U.S. taxpayer and innovators’ resources because of bureaucratic red tape and legal uncertainty.

While the rhetoric expressed in the platform is not new to FDA Matters—it has a certain menacing quality when it is “the voice” of an American political party as opposed to a “government is bad” Tea Party leader or a frustrated medical device executive.

It begs the question: didn’t America’s global leadership in the life sciences come in part from the FDA’s competence and high standards and not despite them? I would emphatically say “yes,” but there certainly seem to be others that would answer “no.”

Harsh Words for FDA: Consistent with the Overall Tone of the Platform. FDA definitely needs some improving—as past FDA Matters’ columns have made clear. I try to stay constructive and be mindful that complex problems rarely have simple solutions.

Perhaps more to the point, FDA—by itself and working with Congress—seems to have made enormous strides over the last few years. One could even argue that FDA is already working hard on implementing a “pro-innovation” and “create more predictability” agenda that Republicans should like.

This, perhaps, brings us full circle around to our prior warning not to read too much into campaign rhetoric.

FDA reform is two paragraphs in a 50 page document—one that stridently and broadly promotes smaller government and fiscal prudence, almost regardless of consequences. For example, on budget issues, the Platform calls for “Reining in Out-of-Control Spending, Balancing the Budget, and Ensuring Sound Monetary Policy.”

When government is cast as incompetent and out-of-control, it leaves little space to say good things about federal agencies, such as FDA, that work hard, are underfunded, and are committed to improving their performance. When it comes to FDA, we can be hopeful that Republican candidates are more judicious while campaigning…..and, if elected, more restrained in their actions than their rhetoric suggests.

Steven

FDA and the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election

FDA Matters has been wondering: when is the right time to start talking about the 2012 U.S. Presidential election and how it might affect FDA’s future? The best answer is: when Congress has finished its FDA policy work for the year. With the enactment of FDA user fee reauthorization legislation and a pending agreement on government funding for the first half of FY 2013 (starts October 1, 2012), it is now time to start talking. 

Without picking sides: what issues face FDA after the election and in 2013? How might the agency be affected by whether President Barack Obama is given another four year term or challenger Mitt Romney is elected President?

For those of us deeply involved in the FDA world, the most important difference between the candidates might well be their approach to the agency and particularly toward FDA leadership.

President Obama has not yet issued any statements about FDA on his   campaign website  . However, based on the last 3 ½ years, he supports FDA and its mission and sees that the agency’s role is likely to continue to grow because of globalization, public health and safety, and the need to encourage innovation. 

His overall regulatory positioning might be considered less favorable to FDA. New agency regulations must pass through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). Cass Sunstein, a distinguished legal scholar appointed to head OIRA in 2009, is considered to be more open to de-regulatory approaches that may be inconsistent with FDA’s growing responsibilities. For example, it is his office that is currently holding up some of the regulations needed to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act.

The Republic nominee, Mitt Romney, has not yet issued any specific policy statements on FDA. However, he appeared at a medical device company event in late March and       su   ggested     that FDA is part of an “attack on free enterprise” by “the thousands upon thousands of bureaucrats that work in Washington.”

His campaign website does not reference FDA, but it does have a position paper on regulation. In it, he advocates:

·                  Imposing a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies*

·                  Requiring congressional approval of all new “major” regulations

One should never take campaign speeches too seriously. Even allowing for that, it would appear there are significant differences in how the two candidates view FDA today.  These differences may narrow or expand in the three months until Election Day. 

Just as the two candidates appear to differ strongly on the role of FDA, they are also likely to differ on their choice of FDA commissioners. This is not just a matter of whether Romney wins, but also if Commissioner Hamburg is thinking about leaving (and we have no knowledge of this, only that it is not uncommon for Administration leaders to leave in the year after a President is re-elected).

The history of appointments of FDA commissioners is quite varied, starting with 1991 when Dr. David Kessler became the first Commissioner to face a Senate confirmation hearing. He resigned at the beginning of Clinton’s second term (analogous to an Obama victory and a decision by Dr. Hamburg to leave). It took nearly two years for President Clinton to appoint his successor and the Senate to confirm the appointment.

Hiring a new commissioner was not a priority for the new Bush Administration in 2001. Dr. Mark McClellan was confirmed in November 2002, more than 20 months after the new Administration took office. In contrast, Dr. Hamburg was appointed by the Obama Administration and was confirmed by May, a delay of less than 5 months.

So, if Romney wins or Obama wins/Hamburg resigns….we may have a new Commissioner quickly or the job may be vacant for a long time.

Overall, the differences between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are likely to matter a great deal to FDA. In turn, this will affect FDA stakeholders….regardless of their politics or their views on whether FDA needs continuous improvement or an outright overhaul.

   Steven

*   My understanding of this: the private sector cost impact of any new federal regulation must be offset by the private sector savings from repealing or significantly revising an existing federal regulation.

P.S. For those wanting more on FDA and the U.S. elections, FDA Matters intends to write often on this topic over the next few months.

FDA’s E-Mail Scandal: First Impressions

According to the New York Times, FDA collected more than 75,000 employee e-mails in an effort to identify leaks of confidential trade secret information. At some point, a narrow, possibly legitimate inquiry into a handful of scientists at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) turned into a massive e-mail surveillance of selected individuals and their contacts.

So far, FDA is not contrite. FDA’s position, while still not quite official, appears to be: we tried to accommodate these individuals’ complaints within the personnel and dispute resolution systems. We had legitimate concerns that trade secrets were leaving FDA in their correspondence with third parties.

FDA Matters believes we don’t know the whole story yet.

The immediate perception is that the agency--in the name of protecting trade secrets--targeted internal critics and found ways to monitor their strategy and actions.

Fueling concerns is that a number of the monitored e-mails were sent to media, the President, and Members of Congress. Among others, Republican Senator Charles Grassley and Democratic Congressman Chris Van Hollen, have expressed concerns that correspondence with their staffs had been part of the surveillance.

Further, the surveillance appears to have included correspondence with the Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency with jurisdiction to oversee whistleblower complaints. Understandably, they are unhappy when they perceive that other federal agencies are interfering in their investigations.

In short—even with Congressional recess coming up and a national election—this issue is not likely to go away.

Every day FDA receives confidential trade secret information that it is legally obligated to protect. Any individual failing to do so is open to penalties—I assume both criminal and civil. To me, the key paragraph of the NY Times story is this one:

F.D.A. officials went to the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services to seek a criminal investigation into the possible leak, but they were turned down. The inspector general found that there was no evidence of a crime, noting that “matters of public safety” can legally be released to the news media.

Undeterred, agency officials began the electronic monitoring operation on their own.

If true, this is quite damning of the agency and provokes the usual question of why senior FDA officials did not exercise more restraint and better judgment.  

However, the agency’s unofficial semi-response suggests that this is not the full picture. At some point, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) at FDA became involved and authorized surveillance. Assuming this is true, did OGC have the authority to do so…and did they know that they were authorizing a broad surveillance? (I refuse to think of 75,000 e-mails as a narrow search).

According to an on-line Wall Street Journal article, the key individual in this case is a “serial whistleblower” (my term, not theirs), having filed lawsuits at two previous jobs. Supposedly, in both cases, the allegations of institutional misconduct were not proven in court, but he received settlements for “wrongful terminations” that followed his whistleblowing. What happened previously and elsewhere is irrelevant, except perhaps to remind us how hard it is for government agencies and public entities to fire an employee who they believe to be a disruptive force.

There is no way that FDA can look good if it is seen as approving devices that should not be on the market, squelching internal scientific disagreements, pursuing vendettas against its employees, or interfering with the prerogatives of Congress and the Office of Special Counsel.

In the face of all of this—the allegations and FDA unwillingness or inability to respond fully--it is hard not to worry about the agency. It is an institution that badly needs public and congressional support to do its job, especially when its responsibilities are growing and its budget isn’t.

FDA Matters hopes that Commissioner Hamburg and her senior staff are able to respond more fully and “on the record” in a way that helps stakeholders, Congress, the media and OSC understand why the extensive surveillance became necessary and what public purposes it served.

Steven

Here is more background, provided as a courtesy by BioCentury:  http://www.biocenturytv.com/freecontent/tbr_072312.pdf.

Some of the other relevant documents available only through subscription trade media:

1/ FDA’s response to Senator Grassley is available from Inside Health Policy (www.insidehealthpolicy.com, by subscription) at: FDA letter to Grassley.

2/ According to Dickinson’s FDA Webview (www.fdaweb.com, by subscription) Commissioner Hamburg on 7/17/12 sent the following email to all employees:

Over the past few days, a handful of stories, first appearing in The New York Times, were written regarding the agency’s monitoring of the computers of five CDRH employees.

I want to reinforce that the FDA’s greatest strength is our people. I value the expertise, professionalism and dedication each of you brings to this agency every day. There is no greater mission than that with which we are charged – protecting the public health. I have great confidence in FDA’s leadership and employees, and we have worked hard to foster a culture where differing opinions on scientific data, regulatory issues and product approvals may be expressed freely. In addition, employees have avenues available to them to voice their concerns both inside and outside the organization without disclosing proprietary information that is protected by law from unauthorized disclosures. I want to reiterate the FDA's commitment to protecting the rights of whistleblowers who are doing a service by bringing public safety concerns to the forefront. It is only in working together with the highest levels of professionalism and ethics that we will continue to achieve our mission.

Regarding the recent news stories, I want to stress that the FDA’s ability to fulfill our mission of protecting and promoting public health necessarily relies upon our ability to protect confidential information. Protecting such information in our possession allows us to work with industry and other stakeholders to ensure the quality of FDA-regulated products and the integrity of FDA-decision-making.

In 2010, the agency initiated monitoring limited to the government-owned computers of five CDRH employees. The impetus for the monitoring was a March 2010 New York Times article and a letter from GE Healthcare that indicated a pattern of unauthorized disclosures of confidential information related to pending medical device applications and submissions over the course of more than a year. The intent of the monitoring was to determine whether confidential commercial information had been inappropriately released and to stop any further unauthorized disclosures, since any such disclosures are a violation of the law.

Although the FDA, as with other federal agencies, has the discretion to conduct appropriate monitoring of government computers, we do so only in very limited circumstances. We do not take lightly the decision to monitor government computers.

I hope this note offers a bit more context to the situation. We will continue to update you as best we can. Please be assured that your work and your opinions are appreciated.

User Fee Reauthorization—Critics Come Out Before the Ink Is Dry

The House passed the final user fee reauthorization legislation last week and (as of this evening) the Senate has also passed the bill. It will now go to the President for signature. FDA Matters says: well done, Congress! Despite my fear of delays and bickering, you completed this process on time and with broad bipartisan support.

However, critics are already emerging, "before the ink is dry.” The advocacy group, Public Citizen, is complaining that drugs and devices will be less safe as a result of the legislation. At the same time, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former FDA official, has published an essay arguing the legislation doesn’t go far enough to expedite review of drugs for serious medical conditions.

The Public Citizen Health Research Group’s critique is to be expected. They were founded 40 years ago and have consistently been critical of the agency’s handling of drug and medical device approvals. Their continued opposition rests on three primary points:

1. User fees created by PDFUA have created a conflict of interest because the agency is funded in part by the industry it is supposed to be regulating.
2. This has led to poor quality reviews of drugs and thus the release of dangerous products. Since PDUFA, more drugs have been approved and then banned, causing needless deaths/injuries.
3. Working conditions at the FDA have plummeted since PDUFA, resulting in high staff turnover and sweatshop-like conditions.

I, too, wish that FDA were 100% taxpayer funded, but user fees are reality, a compromise that makes it possible for FDA to have the funds to operate. There is no evidence of bias generated by the fees, plus Americans would be far worse off if a quarter of FDA’s budget (user fees) were to suddenly disappear.

With regard to the quality of drug reviews, I see no evidence they’ve declined and the methodology of the PDUFA/drug approval study is suspect. Working conditions and staff turnover are definitely a matter of “compared to what?” I don’t think FDA does badly when you look at it that way.

Far more of a surprise is the essay by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, former deputy commissioner for medical and scientific affairs at FDA.  Using primarily examples of orphan drugs, he argues that FDA is over-focused on long-term safety and on reining in physician prescribing practices. As a result, the agency is stifling medical innovation and disregarding the needs of patients with serious medical conditions. I don’t agree with him on a number of points, but you can hit the link and judge for yourself.

His argument might be more compelling if he referenced large-market products, such as pain killers and obesity drugs. However, by using orphan drug examples, Dr. Gottlieb winds up attacking the new user fee reauthorization legislation as insufficient to expedite review of drugs that target serious medical conditions.

FDA Matters has already praised changes affecting orphan drugs and accelerated approval. My view is shared by much of FDA and the FDA stakeholder communities; for example: FDA and other leaders, BIO, the National Health Council and the National Organization for Rare Disorders.

So, why attack PDUFA’s bold new efforts on behalf of orphan drugs and patients with serious medical conditions? 

To Dr. Gottlieb, these “legislative fixes” are inadequate because “the agency’s staff will still have wide discretion in determining when to employ these [new] tools.” If overcautious, reluctant reviewers are still in charge, then even Congressional changes in the FDA law will not improve the review process to benefit patients with serious medical conditions.

His proposed solution is to remove the approval of drugs from the review divisions and give that authority to a panel of senior scientists with the “experience and stature to exercise the policy judgment required to make careful decisions about how to weigh risk and benefits…” An even better solution, in his mind, would be to follow the European Medicine Agency’s model in which staff does analysis and evaluation, but the final approval decisions are made by politically-appointed individuals.

I think both of these approaches would severely weaken—if not outright undermine—the existing FDA approval process. This would be particularly unfortunate now, when the new legislation empowers agency leadership to lower the barriers, so that review staff can be more flexible and apply new approaches to evaluating therapies for serious medical conditions.

Conclusions. Before more drastic actions are considered, let’s give the new user fee reauthorization legislation time to work. The ink isn’t even dry!

Steven

Many readers were out of town this past Friday and may have missed:

Biosimilars Update: Keys for the Next Year and Beyond   June 22nd, 2012

The biosimilars market in the U.S. will not grow large overnight. By a decade from now, sales of biosimilars will be creating new winners and losers in the overall biopharmaceutical marketplace. In light of this, I was recently asked: what should a developer or investor be looking to achieve over the next year in the area of biosimilars? What should they be looking to achieve in the years after that?  Read the rest of this entry

OMB, HHS, or FDA: Who Really Makes FDA’s Decisions?

OMB, White House staff, and the Secretary of HHS review many FDA decisions and their oversight sometimes alters FDA’s positions. This was chronicled in a recent NY Times article and generated a number of editorial comments criticizing anyone tampering with FDA’s integrity. However, the individuals named in the article have the authority (on behalf of the President) to question FDA’s judgments.  

More importantly, FDA Matters observes that the vast majority of FDA-related decisions--and virtually all of the science-related decisions--are made by the FDA. The key is the strong public health and scientific expertise of FDA staff and the credibility this brings to any scientifically-based agency decision.  

The President is in charge.  The President’s responsibility is to “faithfully execute the laws” of the United States. The task is enormous, requiring a $3 trillion annual budget and 1.3 million civilian employees*.  Delegation is necessary and is controlled by having a rigidly hierarchical structure of government that assures, to the extent possible, that decisions made by subordinate departments and agencies reflect the law and the President’s policies.

Department secretaries—those primarily responsible for carrying out the President’s policies—report directly as part of the President’s Cabinet. They also report indirectly through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is the primary administrative structure for assuring that the Executive Branch makes decisions consistent with the President’s wishes. 

FDA is part of the government, not separate from it. The very nature of government makes FDA’s independence an illusion**. The Commissioner is not elected; she is appointed by the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Ultimately, all decisions are the President’s (and the Secretary of HHS’ acting on his behalf).

While oversight and review of FDA’s decisions by White House staff, OMB and the Secretary of HHS is quite real, it is also legitimate. Those named in the NY Times article all have the authority to question FDA’s judgments before they become final.  The positions they took may have been unwise, but they did not exceed their responsibilities.

Oversight and review of FDA is limited in its scope and impact. While FDA cannot escape oversight within the Executive Branch, the NY Times article cited only five examples among thousands of decisions FDA makes every year.

None of the five cases involved overriding the scientific and medical expertise of FDA. Two of the five were labeling issues (caloric content of movie popcorn, sunscreens with relatively low SPF factors). The other three were access issues (emergency hormonal contraceptives, the continued marketing of an asthma inhaler containing fluorocarbons, and whether FDA should waive enforcement against pharmacy compounding of a specific, newly-approved drug).

The most serious of the five was the decision on access to emergency hormonal contraceptives, where it is alleged that HHS overrode FDA’s scientific judgment. Without defending HHS’s actions, it is relevant that neither biological nor medical science was involved. Rather the FDA “science” involved label comprehension studies (can adolescents under-17 understand and properly follow the directions on the label).  As an aside: decisions concerning emergency hormonal contraceptives have an almost-unique history of getting FDA leadership in hot water within the Executive Branch and with Congress and the public. 

FDA’s medical and scientific expertise protects virtually all of its medical and scientific decisions. Since OMB and HHS oversight of FDA is continuous, there are undoubtedly other examples where FDA has compromised or yielded. Given FDA's public accountability for its decisions (correspondence, hearings, reports, advisory committees), there can't be many instances in which the agency's scientific or medical judgments are overruled and it is not publicly known. So, I can’t say that FDA’s scientific judgments are never overruled, but it certainly appears to be rare.  

The alleged problem of intrusions on FDA’s scientific integrity may appear larger because of a misunderstanding about the nature of FDA. Not all FDA decisions are based on scientific or medical expertise. For example, requiring caloric labeling of movie popcorn might create consistency of government policy across multiple food service settings, but it's a policy judgment, not a decision based on science or medicine.

In fact, there is very good reason why White House staff, OMB and HHS will never significantly affect FDA scientific and medical decisions: they lack the credibility and scientifically-trained manpower to do it.

Steven

* Federal government expenditures and number of civilian employees are for 2011. Civilian employees are expressed as full-time equivalents and exclude US postal workers. Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

** Proposals have been made to  re-create FDA as an “independent agency”  that reports directly to the President and not through a Cabinet-level department, much like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. However, EPA’s experience is fairly clear: reporting directly to the President and OMB....does not free you from having your decisions questioned and sometimes overruled.

FDA Matters Mailbag: Hatch-Waxman, Biosimilars, User Fees and More

Over the last month, FDA Matters has covered a wide-range of FDA-related topics: the agency, industry, and Congress, as well as medical innovation, user fee reauthorization legislation, food safety and post-market surveillance. The response has been great: FDA Matters has many new readers and I received a number of interesting questions.

Today’s column touches on biosimilars, Hatch-Waxman, user fees and FDA management. Keep the questions coming!

Is FDA becoming too large for food, drugs and medical devices to be in the same agency?

Last summer, the Commissioner re-organized her office to better manage the growing responsibilities and complexity of the agency’s work. She divided the agency’s work into four parts:

• food and veterinary medicine
• medical products
• global outreach and inspection, and
• administrative matters overseen by a chief operating officer 

The key is that each of these individuals has line authority to manage their part of the agency, rather than being a staff advisor to the Commissioner.  

With specific regard to foods, there are proposals to move the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) out of FDA. I believe the Center is best served by being part of the public health focus of FDA.

How do Europe and the US compare in their approaches to biosimilars?

Both the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA are acting cautiously, but in different ways. Europe has focused on a limited number of reference products, building their knowledge and experience one therapeutic category at a time.

In contrast, FDA has already met with sponsors to discuss 11 reference products, presumably covering a number of therapeutic categories. Given FDA’s broader approach, proceeding case-by-case with strong scientific requirements is the best way for FDA to acquire knowledge and experience.

A different comparison was also posed to me: an eager EMA versus a reluctant FDA.  In less than two years, FDA has produced multiple policy speeches and articles, three guidances, held multiple sponsor meetings and allowed several sponsors to begin work. I assure you: FDA is fully committed to biosimilars!

As an aside, anyone familiar with the lack of FDA guidance on product-related social media can tell you how FDA behaves when it is reluctant to act. It looks quite different.

If the user fee reauthorization legislation has the potential to be a vehicle for any FDA-related provision, might Congress re-open Hatch-Waxman?

I shudder at the possibility, but can’t rule it out. I asked a knowledgeable friend what he would propose if given the chance to amend Hatch-Waxman. His reply: get FDA out of the patent enforcement business, yet assure generics the equivalent of the 180-day exclusivity if they win in court.

Since this would benefit generics, a trade-off for innovators could be longer exclusivity for new molecular entity (NME) compounds that lack intellectual property (IP) protection. It might be the same 10 years they receive in the EU or the 12 years for biologics. Similarly, a stronger incentive than 5 to 7 years is needed to generate interest in 505 (b)(2) drug applications in the absence of IP protection. 

I’m not suggesting this, but thought it interesting enough to give his ideas some visibility.

Companies are telling me: it’s hard to justify investing in the US biosimilars market because of the resources it will require. Why is FDA Matters so optimistic?

I hear some of this, too. Certainly, the first generation of biosimilar applicants (and there seem to be plenty of them) are going to pay more--and live with more uncertainty for a longer period of time-- than those that start 5 years from now when costs have dropped.

However, those who are successful are going to be rewarded, as I explored more fully in How Biosimilars Will Transform the Marketplace. Put simply:

• If the first biosimilar approvals from FDA are for solid products with good data and fair pricing, then hospital purchasing groups, pharmaceutical benefit managers and formulary committees are going to move significant market share away from the reference products.

• In multi-product categories, the market shift may be even greater because there will be therapeutic substitution, not just substitution of the biosimilar for the reference drug.

 I look forward to more reader questions!

Steven

Medical Innovation, Food Safety, and Imports: Did FDA Have A Good Year in 2011?

 Before turning to 2012, FDA Matters wanted to take one more look at FDA’s performance in 2011. So much happens at FDA that it’s easy to lose perspective. And no matter what the agency does, somebody will be unhappy. So, should Commissioner Hamburg feel good about the last 12 months?

FDA Matters thinks it comes down to how well FDA handled the three most important challenges it faced:

• improving the medical product review process, including stimulating innovation;
• implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act; and
• advancing the agency’s ability to assure the safety of imports.

Before exploring these particulars, FDA Matters feels FDA staff and Dr. Hamburg should be applauded just for surviving the daily grinding pressure of the agency’s workload. As I have noted previously, FDA’s greatest strength is its people.

Medical Product Review Processes. Was it a good year? The approval process for drugs, biologics and medical devices elicited widespread criticism that FDA was too slow, too risk-averse, underweighted patient benefit, and was demanding certainty where none was possible. The unhappiness was constant and palpable from medical device stakeholders; more muted, but still quite strong among bio-pharmaceutical stakeholders.

As the year went on, this critique of the agency increasingly coalesced under the rubric of innovation. Specifically, FDA was accused of creating processes and making decisions that stifle American innovation and cost American jobs.

FDA formulated its response in several ways:

• Integrated innovation-oriented benchmarks and goals as core components of both prescription drug and medical device user fee negotiations,
• Outlined innovation initiatives in February 2011, CDRH Innovation Initiative, and October 2011, Driving Biomedical Innovation: Initiatives to Improve Products for Patients,
• Appointed Stephen P. Spielberg, MD., PhD, an academician and industry veteran as Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products with the intent that he would focus his efforts on promoting medical product innovation, and
• Focused public attention that 35 new innovative medicines were approved during fiscal year 2011, a notable increase over the prior year.

Optimistically, I believe these actions are the start of a turning point for the agency. The largest barrier is not agency leadership’s willingness to promote innovation…rather it is that combining public health and innovation requires a new identity for the agency, something that can't happen overnight.

Food Safety. Was it a good year? At the very end of 2010, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), which creates a sophisticated risk-based food safety system that stretches from the farm to our tables. The new law created or enhanced FDA authority in the following areas: prevention, inspection and compliance, response to problems, imports, and enhanced partnerships with other food safety agencies.

Implementing the new law is a complex multi-faceted task that has been made even more difficult by inadequate funding. Further, many of the new law’s mandates became effective quickly, leaving little opportunity for manpower and IT resources to be mustered to the tasks.

The agency just released its one-year progress report and there seems to be general consensus that the agency has done a tough job well. Year two (2012) will be at least as challenging, but we are definitely one-year closer to a safer food supply.

Imports. Was it a good year? The third major challenge to FDA in 2011 was continuous rapid globalization of the world markets for food, drugs, and medical devices. Almost every country in the world produces raw materials, ingredients or finished goods that become part of imported products regulated by the FDA.  

In July 2011, the FDA issued a special report, Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality, which describes the enormous impact of globalization on FDA-regulated products. FDA is responding through:

• closer partnerships with its foreign counterparts and public-and private-sector third parties,
• development of global data information systems,
• continued expansion of its capabilities in intelligence gathering, and
• allocation of agency resources based on the risk of a food safety problem.

During 2011, the agency further expanded its network of overseas offices and reorganized its headquarters oversight. The latter was accomplished by appointing Deborah Autor as the new Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy.   

Conclusions. In upcoming columns, we will be detailing the challenges facing FDA in 2012. Meantime, we urge Dr. Hamburg and all of FDA to take a moment to think back with pride to 2011. You had a good year.

Steven

Post-Market Safety: Can Sentinel Do Some of the Heavy Lifting?

In the FDA-regulated world, success is often defined as approval of a new product or indication based on two, well-controlled clinical trials. However, the scrutiny doesn’t end there. FDA’s mission includes determining whether already-approved drugs perform safely and effectively when used by large numbers of patients in routine medical practice. 

To understand what happens under these “real world conditions,” FDA has expanded its post-market  efforts, including development of a monitoring system (called Sentinel) that will be able to track drug usage and medical history information on tens of millions of patients. Although such information will be useful, it can only provide post-hoc inferences, not proof of causation. Even with this limitation, FDA Matters thinks developing the system is worthwhile and may provide multiple benefits. 

There are multiple tools for assessing post-approval safety and efficacy that fit loosely under the rubric of pharmacovigilance. When approving medical products, FDA mostly relies on data that comes from pre-specified hypotheses that are tested through randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials. In contrast, the data that comes from pharmacovigilance is inherently less rigorous; indeed it constitutes a form of “data dredging” that FDA abhors. The heart of the problem is that:  

Real world data sets = uncontrolled variables + inconsistent data collection + questionable data accuracy.

When FDA and manufacturers collect adverse events reports, they know there will be underreporting of incidents, as well as limited ability to judge whether problems are drug-related. When FDA looks at the Medicare database, they know that information submitted as part of medical claims is unreliable and subject to systemic bias (e.g. medical coding is designed to support reimbursement, not public health analysis).

The Sentinel database should be superior because it incorporates medical records and patient registry information, along with claims data. Still it provides inferences, not proof.

Active surveillance—continuously monitoring millions of health records---is only worthwhile if these limitations are acknowledged. It can never provide certainty about whether drugs are safe and effective. It can tell you what is worth further examination…but can never tell you the cause of any problem that is identified.

As the FDA mantra goes: association is not causation. No matter how many health records and claims data are reviewed, this is still true.

Clinical trials have limitations, also. Trials don’t tell us how a drug will be used by prescribers. They can never provide complete information about patient outcomes for those individuals with several medical conditions (i.e. multi-morbidity) or who take many medications simultaneously (i.e. poly-pharmacy).

By inference (although not with certainty), pharmacovigilance and active surveillance could bring us closer to addressing potential problems that can’t be resolved by clinical trials. For example, many years ago, I worked on a drug to treat pre-term labor. As I recollect, there were two instances of respiratory problems in a trial of several hundred women. No one could say for sure whether this effect was caused by the drug or occurred at random. A study large enough to find out was infeasible.

Based on the potential respiratory problem, FDA rejected the drug despite the benefits it might have provided to women experiencing pre-term labor. If this same situation were to come up today…maybe FDA would decide differently, knowing it could collect patient outcomes information through pharmacovigilance, particularly active surveillance.

Ideally, FDA would know everything it needs to know about a drug at the time of its approval. Information derived from review of real world data sets can never be as good. But properly understood and carefully analyzed, the inferences derived from pharmacovigilance can add to our understanding about safety, efficacy, drug interactions and side effects.

Instead of just using that capacity to identify post-approval problems, FDA needs to incorporate pharmacovigilance into its thinking about when to approve drugs and with what conditions. FDA’s capacity to do pharmacovigilance and active surveillance should lead to a greater willingness by FDA to approve drugs, particularly those with otherwise solid benefit-risk equations, but burdened by questions that cannot be resolved prospectively or through clinical trials (even in phase 4).

Patients would benefit if FDA made this one of the Sentinel priorities.

Steven

This column first appeared on June 21, 2011. It is one of my favorites from last year.

Understanding FDA—Its Strength Is Its People

Science is essential and rules and regulations must be followed…but ultimately it is the people of FDA who determine whether the agency functions well and acts in the best interests of the American people.  For that reason, a recurrent theme in FDA Matters is the importance of FDA employees. Their jobs are much more difficult than most of us imagine.

Consider the oft-expressed paradigm: FDA is committed to science-based decisionmaking. Yet, science doesn’t exist in a pure, understandable, easily accessible and unassailable form. Neither do laws and regulations. While law and science are fundamental to FDA decisions, only people can actually make the decisions.

During 2011, FDA Matters explicitly looked at the role of staff three times.

The first column asked: Will the Real FDA Please Stand Up?  It was in response to a widely circulated e-mail appealing for public support to prevent the firing of “courageous, honest FDA scientists who risked their careers to save lives by informing Congress about serious safety concerns involving dangerous, FDA-approved drugs and medical devices.”

Whistle-blowing is sometimes necessary. However, the image of a corrupt, politicized FDA cynically suppressing dissent and putting the American people at risk is inconsistent with the FDA that I have known and followed for over 30 years. Yet, I acknowledged that the claims made in the e-mail are persistent and come from many sources.

Exploring this in the column, I concluded that FDA is making progress in handling dissent and in encouraging managers to be more open-minded. While FDA makes mistakes, there is no conspiracy. The agency is fully committed to serving the American people. 

My second column, People, Not Science, Make Decisions, looked at why decisions take so long, especially product approvals. When asked about bottlenecks at FDA, I had to admit that people slow the process down. I pointed to three factors that cause delays:

• FDA lacks sufficient resources.  FDA has been dramatically understaffed for decades, although better funding in recent years has improved the situation. Even still, new demands on FDA are increasing faster than staff can be added.
• FDA’s culture promotes intensive scientific discussion.  Objective science-based decisionmaking is a goal, not a reality. People arrive at decisions with a bundle of perceptions and experiences that render their judgment subjective. Yet, they wouldn’t have much to contribute without those experiences.
• Science has become more complex and results often unpredictable. Life sciences’ products are increasingly based on cutting edge discoveries. It takes more time, more thought and more knowledge on FDA’s part to make a good decision about them. 

Finally, I devoted a third column, FDA and Things that Might Go Bump in the Night, to exploring what happens when FDA staff has to decide the fate of breakthrough technology that could bring great benefit or great sorrow to humankind. In the current context, I had nanotechnology, genetically-engineered (GE) animals, and synthetic biology in mind.

Thirty years ago, FDA gave a cautious “yes” to the first biotechnology studies that eventually became important medical products to treat cancer, arthritis, MS and many other diseases. The world is a better place as a result.

In retrospect, the decision was right, but at the time, this wasn’t clear. Scary visions of mad scientists and technology run amok were powerful forces in the early days of biotechnology. In response, FDA staff took great care in setting up an appropriate regulatory environment.

Conclusion: Based on my experiences working with FDA and as expressed in these three columns, I believe that FDA staff--the people contributing to and making the decisions at FDA--are its strength. While they are human and make mistakes, FDA’s employees are smart, conscientious and committed.   

Steven

Beyond Plan B: Scientific Integrity and a Possible Third Class of Drugs

Patient access to the emergency hormonal contraceptive “Plan B One-Step” has been one of the most combustible issues ever faced by FDA. It received more attention last week when FDA approved expanded access for adolescents under 17 and HHS Secretary Katherine Sebelius promptly overruled the agency because she found inadequate scientific support for the decision. (For my readers outside the US, here is a New York Times article that provides background).

FDA Matters wonders: has FDA’s scientific decisionmaking authority been thwarted in some lasting way, as some have claimed? Is it time to reconsider proposals for a new category of drugs for which pharmacists are the gatekeeper?

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and other laws, the Secretary of HHS has the legal authority to make virtually all decisions within the Department’s jurisdiction. Most of this authority has been delegated to subordinates, including the FDA Commissioner, although the delegation can be withdrawn at any time. No one remembers an instance in which the Secretary explicitly overruled FDA.

Was there a lapse in communications between FDA and HHS? Normally, the Secretary and the Commissioner (or their staffs) discuss controversial decisions before they are made and a compromise reached. Had this occurred, FDA would have announced that compromise as the agency’s decision and taken the heat for ignoring its advisors and staff.  

The alternative explanation, which I hope is true, is that there was an understanding that FDA’s voice should be heard and its integrity preserved, while the Secretary would take the heat for the decision by overruling the agency. This would be consistent with an approach that Commissioner Hamburg has championed: that government should be more honest and transparent about disagreements, as long as everyone understands that someone with decisionmaking authority will actually make a decision.

Either way, it is important to recognize that Plan B has proven to be a “one-of-a-kind” controversy, presenting uniquely difficult issues that aren’t present in 99.9% of FDA’s decisions. I see no reason for commentators to be writing, as one did:  “FDA’s medical and scientific integrity has been forever blighted by these frankly political decisions.”

Secretary Sebelius is not going to make a habit of questioning the scientific support for FDA’s decisions. Nor have we any reason to fear the death of FDA’s integrity or to conclude that it can no longer be a scientifically-driven regulatory agency.

Leaving aside the merits of either FDA or HHS’s position, the Plan B controversy provides an impetus to consider whether there should be a third class of drugs that are neither prescription-only (Rx) nor over-the-counter (OTC). The day after the HHS decision, John Jenkins, director of FDA’s Office of New Drugs, suggested just such a connection between Plan B and a potential third class of drugs known as “behind the counter” drugs (BTC).   

BTC, which has been discussed for decades, relies upon pharmacists to dispense these drugs without a prescription and independent of a physician-office visit. Pharmacists are the most widely distributed of all health care professionals, as well as the most readily accessible. BTC would empower them to provide additional education, monitor appropriate use and discourage misuse for a wide variety of drugs. 

Currently, OTC products containing pseudoephedrine are handled as BTC because of their potential use in making methamphetamine. According to Dr. Jenkins, statins are potential candidates for BTC status, as might other drug classes where petitions for Rx to OTC switches have been denied but there is still potential for safe patient self-treatment without a physician office visit.

In sum, accessibility to the emergency contraceptive Plan B continues to be a disruptive and controversial issue for FDA. However, this is a unique issue and there should be no continuing damage to FDA because the agency was overruled by HHS. A third class of drugs could evolve out of this that might be beneficial to patients across a number of diseases and drug classes, including hormonal contraceptives.

 Steven

FDA Bashing: The Wrong Way to Improve FDA

FDA is imperfect in many ways: it can be hard to predict, maddeningly slow to decide, and inflexible in the face of complex situations. Yet, FDA does remarkably well at carrying out its difficult public health mission. Plus, the agency is constantly striving for improvement.

These points seem lost on agency critics bent on bashing the agency. To believe many of them, FDA is bureaucratically and culturally driven to be ineffective…. and heedless of the impact of its actions on industry innovation and patients in medical need. FDA Matters says: nonsense!

FDA bashing is not a victimless crime. It is a slur on the agency’s good name and many accomplishments. It impedes rational efforts to improve FDA process and performance. It is a barrier to fruitful dialog between FDA and its stakeholders. It drains agency resources and threatens its funding.

FDA bashing is also an incendiary, fostering an environment of “simple, neat and wrong solutions” aimed at fixing the agency.*

FDA bashers make it seem like the world would be a better place if the agency didn’t exist or if its powers were dramatically circumscribed. It’s hard to make FDA a more effective public health and regulatory agency in the midst of such misguided rhetoric. FDA was created--and further empowered over the last 100 years—precisely because regulatory oversight is necessary to assure a safe food supply and safe and effective medical products.

When FDA makes predictable, science-based decisions, patients and consumers benefit from quality products…and industry has the level playing field needed to assure fair competition. This works well most of the time. I’ve heard it said: the world only notices FDA when something goes wrong. That’s largely true.

Believing in FDA and its mission does not require silence or uncritical booster-ism. Let’s all agree that FDA needs to do a lot better before it can be considered the model  for a modern food and drug regulatory agency.

There is a bright dividing line between FDA bashing and working to improve the agency. FDA Matters has praised the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) for its positive agenda, even while expressing reservations about BIO’s specific proposals for independent agency status for FDA and a new progressive approval pathway. There have been many positives (and much progress) in the negotiations over medical device user fee reauthorization, even as industry and the agency have bickered privately and in public about the direction of the program.

FDA Matters has been disappointed by many others--industry, patients, Congress, media, and think-tanks--who have emphasized agency bashing at their meetings and in their public communications. Often, the bashing starts with the wrong premise (the agency is largely broken) and concludes with the wrong prescription (break down the agency’s culture and processes and rebuild anew). Not only are these wrong, but they crowd out practical and constructive dialog about agency improvement.

FDA has (in my view) gone out of its way to welcome comments and respond thoughtfully. There is so much more to do….but the agency is not hiding from criticism or arguing reforms are unnecessary.

Other stakeholders seem to be responding in kind. I am involved with at least two efforts to build FDA reform agendas and would welcome the opportunity to participate in others.

FDA Matters believes the right way to improve FDA is through constructive recommendations and thorough discussion. FDA and our nation deserve better than vitriol about how FDA is destroying jobs and is “the enemy.”

Steven

* After H.L. Mencken’s admonition that “for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.”

Animal Research: An Update on One of FDA’s Core Values

The value of animal research in the life sciences is considered an NIH issue. FDA Matters believes that FDA and its stakeholders should be equally involved.

Animal research is the vital first step in the development of new medical products. Before any safety or efficacy testing is permitted in humans, FDA must be satisfied with animal testing data submitted by the product sponsor. Pick any medical breakthrough and you will find animals were tested prior to humans.

For understandable reasons, we tend to focus on the human part of new products. Which patients will be helped and by how much? By the time a company files a New Drug Application (NDA) or the equivalent in biologics and devices, the headline is the human data. While the animal data is always relevant, it has largely served its purpose as the gateway for human trials.

We talk about the people part without recognizing that the pipeline of innovative drugs and devices would collapse if a broad range of research on animals (e.g. non-human primates, pigs, sheep, dogs, rats, mice, zebrafish, fruit flies, worms) was heavily restricted. Over 96% of the animals used in biomedical research are rodents, birds, fish and invertebrates. As background, there is an excellent summary on the need for animal research available from the advocacy organization, Americans for Medical Progress.

Everybody should be for protecting the welfare of animals. Any means to lessen our dependence on research animals should be welcome. Animals should always be treated ethically and pain reduced or eliminated. The fewest number of animals should be used to reach a conclusion that can be relied upon. Laboratories should be accredited and subject to inspection. Problems should be addressed within a facility under the watchful eye of government, accrediting and licensing agencies and in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act.

Since I last wrote on this topic two years ago, the nature of the animal rights movement in the United States has shifted. Successful prosecutions under the 2006 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) have purged some of the more violent elements of the movement and discouraged others from engaging in destructive acts. However, a small number of activists still use tactics of harassment, intimidation, and vandalism against some research scientists and veterinarians involved in working with laboratory animals.

Many of the research advocacy groups say a greater threat to medical progress is proposed state and federal legislation, often authored by animal rights lobbyists, that has little to do with animal welfare but rather seeks to restrict or raise the cost of animal-based research. An example is The Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act legislation, which continues to draw strong support in Congress. As of April 29, 2012, the House version (HR 1513) has 165 sponsors and the Senate version (S 810) has 14 sponsors.  

These bills would virtually eliminate chimpanzee research, which includes work in vaccines, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, malaria and some types of cancers. Although we use only a comparatively small number of chimpanzees in animal research, I am told that the work often provides essential information that cannot be obtained in any other way.

While the legislation is purportedly about animal welfare, these bills are really designed to limit the biomedical research that we all support and which, we hope, results in FDA-approved medical products.

For me, the choice is easy. I want a product or procedure tested in animals before it is given to me or my loved ones. I believe in protecting animals, but human rights come first.

The importance of animal research needs to be a core value for FDA. Those who benefit from animal research (including patients and industry) need to provide the manpower and financial resources to counter the animal rights movement in America and its threat to medical progress for humans.

Steven

By Whose Standards: FDA’s Identity Crisis and the Level Playing Field

FDA advances public health, protects consumers, regulates products and is an important force in our national economy. Now, FDA is being challenged by Congress and the President to justify itself as a positive force in the advancement of American innovation and as a contributor to US competitiveness.

This is precipitating an identity crisis at FDA. The agency is constantly establishing new standards (and revising old ones) that will protect consumers and bring new therapies to patients. Now it must also consider whether it is unduly impeding American industry.  As this forces FDA to rethink who it is and what it stands for, FDA Matters believes a different FDA will emerge.

The Need for Standards.  Most of FDA’s authority has been granted by Congress in response to marketplace abuses that had led to harmful products becoming commonplace. In each case, FDA has used that authority to set standards that all products must meet, creating a level playing field for industry. As a result, producers of quality products are assured that their competitors will also have to meet standards. 

How important is this effect? A manufacturer in a highly-competitive, FDA- regulated industry once told me: to survive as a business, our upper boundary is limited by what our most foolish competitor offers for sale. FDA standards (and enforcement of those standards) are what assures that both the well-intended and the foolish deliver products that are at or above a defined level of quality and surety.

We mostly take the benefits of a level playing field for granted. Yet, greed, carelessness and malevolence are always at work behind the scenes trying to create a profitable advantage out of substandard products (e.g. counterfeiting, ingredient substitution).  

Abuses aren’t limited to product manufacturing and distribution. Unsafe and ineffective products also result if standards aren’t created and enforced for clinical trial management, proof of efficacy, acceptable clinical trial designs, food additives, data reporting integrity, post-market surveillance and so on. Having these standards also assures fair competition among companies.

The Standards Crisis. By creating, applying and enforcing the highest standards, FDA wants to be seen as the primary force in assuring that Americans have the safest food supply and the safest and most effective therapies anywhere in the world. The agency aspires to always be “the gold standard” for the world.

Two sets of circumstances are forcing the FDA to rethink this particular sense of purpose and self-image. As a result, an identity crisis is slowly building within the agency. 

First, the “highest” standard is rarely the best way to stimulate innovation. If FDA had chosen the toughest, most protective and most restrictive standards in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, the biotechnology industry might not exist today. (see FDA and Things that Might Go Bump in the Night).

The agency faces this same challenge in creating the highest standards that nonetheless help advance nanotechnology, open new vistas in diagnostics and genomics, and encourage breakthroughs in drugs or medical devices. The tension between the “highest standards” and “reasonable and appropriate standards” is a visible and palpable part of the current controversy over revising medical device categories and approval standards. (see Medical Device Melodrama: A Great Story With a New Plot Twist)

Second, there is no global force that levels the playing field among each nation’s regulatory agencies…the way FDA levels the playing field for companies and products in the US market. Efforts at international harmonization of regulatory standards have stretched into decades. Without global standards, there are differences in requirements and even greater differences in interpretation in each national marketplace.

FDA knows that setting standards substantially higher than other nations creates the risk that other countries will introduce new products first. It also makes it more likely those countries can attract more industry, capital and jobs in the global economy. Apart from the issue of bragging rights over whether a drug or device was approved first in the US, considerations of international competition (versus cooperation) have been peripheral, at best, to FDA’s identity.

Conclusion. Right now, FDA is struggling to show that it can be all these things: the gold standard, the toughest, the best, the stimulator of innovation and the advocate for companies and products that meet American standards.

Ultimately, FDA will reconcile these roles because it has no choice. The resulting FDA will not necessarily be better or worse. The change may be dramatic or subtle. The only certainty is FDA’s identity will be different.  

Steven