FDA, Me and Maybe the Mafia—A True Story

In honor of FDA Matters’ third anniversary, I am sharing a personal story. It reflects FDA’s history as a struggle of competing interests—where sometimes reasonable people disagree, often vehemently, while at other times it is obvious that indifference or greed are the driving forces.

Both are a fact of everyday life at FDA and in the FDA-regulated world. Here is my own little story and I still can’t say for sure whether it involved reasonable people or dark forces.

My first recollection of the artificial sweetener, saccharin (distributed under the brand name “Sweet‘N Low”) was a 1977 visit to the House health subcommittee’s staff office. It was overflowing with boxes that contained letters begging Congress to prevent FDA from removing saccharine from the marketplace.

Later that year, Congress passed the Saccharin Study and Labeling Act. This prevented FDA from acting for 2 years and required a warning label on the packaging that said “This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”  The law was extended seven times until the issue disappeared in the 1990’s. The labeling requirement was repealed in 2000.*

After I became a Senate staffer in 1979, I was responsible for shepherding through the 1981 and 1983 extension and probably the 1985 extension, which occurred just before I left the Hill.

These were simple bills—short, totally clear in their meaning, and noncontroversial. The only issue (and not a very large one) was that one committee member refused to consent to its unanimous adoption---which slowed the bill at committee and when it got to the Senate floor. I can’t remember any Senator expressing actual concerns about these bills. 

Sometime around 1983, I started receiving regular visits and calls from Joseph Asaro, Vice President of Governmental Affairs for Cumberland Packing, makers of Sweet ‘N Low and a business located near the Brooklyn docks. I remember him as pleasant, but terribly anxious that nothing stand in the way of extending the moratorium every two years.

It never seemed to sink in to him that passage of the extension was routine business of the most ordinary sort. The more I reassured him (so he wouldn’t call as often), the more solicitous he became. Then one afternoon, I received a call from my family—who lived on Long Island, maybe 20 miles from Cumberland Packing’s headquarters. That morning, a delivery truck had arrived with multiple cartons of Cumberland products, including several 1000-packet boxes of Sweet’N Low, and the message: let us know when you run out.**

Although it was probably meant as a generous gift (and didn’t violate any Senate rules), I was quite upset. I had mentioned to Mr. Asaro that I had grown up on Long Island, but never my family’s names or where they lived (and 30 years ago, pre-Internet, identifying people’s connections was a difficult task without such information.)

In my imagination (or maybe in actuality), I felt that I was being reminded that he knew where my family lived….and I needed to pay more attention to the legislation. Despite all efforts on my part to banish such thoughts, I admit I considered the possibility that Cumberland was involved in some way in organized crime and I had been threatened.

In 2006, an unauthorized history of Cumberland Packing was published and I found that my concern was well-founded, although perhaps not true. According to the book, a 1994 Washington Post article stated that Joseph Asaro had been “identified as an associate of the Bonanno crime family in a prosecution memo….” Subsequently, a New York Times article reported that federal prosecutors and Mr. Asaro’s attorneys denied there was any connection.***  

Threats, even implicit ones, are inherently scary—even if the goal was to make me do something that I was planning to do anyway and for which there was strong Congressional and public policy support. Even at the time, I didn’t really think my family was in “harm’s way.” Still, it made me anxious and self-conscious about what was otherwise a routine task.

Other than being an interesting tale, I hope it is a small reminder to every reader that there are employees of the FDA—sometimes inspectors, but more often in the Office of Criminal Investigations and their colleagues at the FBI and Customs---who do put themselves in “harm’s way” in order to protect us. These threats are invisible to most of us, but are no less real because we don’t see them.

We should salute and remember those who take these risks on our behalf, so that we can enjoy the benefits of a safe food and drug supply.

Steven

* Subsequent studies never strengthened the connection to cancer in humans. In 1985, FDA supported extension of the moratorium and in 1991 withdrew the proposal to ban saccharine from food. It was delisted as a possible carcinogen in 1997 and the warning label requirement was repealed in 2000. http://www.icarus-japan.com/pdf/Saccharin_English.pdf

** Thanks to my mother and sister for their memories of that day, still quite vivid nearly 30 years later.

*** Sweet and Low: A Family Story by Rich Cohen. Published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2006. The material on the possible linkage with organized crime is a footnote on page 144.

Safety and Efficacy Standards: Innovative Approaches to Radical Ideas

FDA is in the midst of its quinquennial* (five year) review from Congress as part of the user fee reauthorization cycle. Lots of proposals are on the table and FDA Matters agrees with some and disagrees with others. So far though, there doesn’t seem to be anything that would pull FDA apart or create an agency that cannot act with integrity. 

In contrast, two key opinion leaders are talking about potentially radical changes in FDA’s safety and efficacy standards. While neither has seen their specific proposals become part of the Hill debate, there are redeeming qualities to what both of them are suggesting.

User Fee Reauthorization Legislation.  I have been expecting the worst from Congress. Five-years of FDA issues have accumulated and there are tight deadlines for action by summer. The Senate bill just passed subcommittee in late April and the House bill will be marked up starting May 8. So far, House and Senate negotiations have stayed within the bounds of acceptable disagreement and we might see final legislation on schedule.

Of course, there is no guarantee that the reauthorization process wouldn’t yet turn into a mess or that the early start won’t be frittered away in extended debate. However, at least so far, Congress is doing a good job with a tough task.   

Radical thinking, far from Capitol Hill.  In February, former FDA commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach wrote that maybe FDA was being too tough on efficacy in the face of proven safety. Specifically, he wrote:

Instead, after proof of concept and safety testing, the product could be approved for marketing with every eligible patient entered in a registry so the company and the FDA can establish efficacy through post-market studies.

Then, in late April, Dr. Eric Topol** of Scripps Institute and a leader on cardiovascular safety issues, suggested that FDA may be too tough on safety in the face of proven efficacy. Specifically, he said:

The whole concept of having “overwhelming efficacy” of a device, or a drug, or a diagnostic test hasn’t been embraced enough. If we have that, learning about safety could be done on a conditional approval basis…..under a probationary status [with] every single individual…monitored electronically to watch the device, the drug, the test in question.

If the goal was to shock as well as provoke discussion, they both succeeded with me. Each offers a proposal that violates at least two important norms: “all drugs have risks” and “the first obligation of physicians is ‘to do no harm.’”

FDA Matters and, I believe, FDA and most stakeholders believe that substantial evidence of both safety and efficacy are needed before drugs are made available in the marketplace. I imagine the American public would agree.  

Radical Thinking Re-channeled.  I respect both individuals for their intellect and achievements, so I tried to find more conventional ways of looking at their ideas, ways that wouldn’t place tens of thousands of patients at risk. I think I succeeded.

Dr. von Eschenbach’s central point is that we don’t squeeze enough therapeutic potential out of drugs that have been well-tested and have excellent safety profiles. In that case, NIH Director Francis Collins is thinking along the same lines.  

On May 3, he announced  a new initiative, called Discovering New Therapeutic Uses for Existing Molecules. The program “will direct researchers’ attention to [and provide availability for testing] a part of the drug development pipeline traditionally difficult to access: compounds that have cleared several key steps in the development process, including safety testing in humans.”

Dr. Topol’s central point is that seriously-ill patients should have access to therapies that demonstrate impressive efficacy, without delay by inflexible rules about proof of safety. In that case, the Senate is thinking along the same lines.  

As described in a recent column, Proposals to Speed Drug Approvals: Not Created Equal, the Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act or the Breakthrough Act (S. 2236) would:

“provide more flexibility when a drug or treatment shows dramatic responses early in development, while still ensuring drug safety and efficacy. For patients, this proposal would allow FDA the ability to move towards more innovative clinical trials, such as minimizing the number of patients enrolled in trials and shortening the duration of trials, when scientifically appropriate.”

S. 2236 is part of the user fee reauthorization bill that passed in the Senate Subcommittee.

Radical ideas met with innovative but conventional solutions. Well done all around.

Steven

* Yes, there really is a word that means “once every five years.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quinquennial

** Dr. Eric Topol was recently named the “most influential physician executive in the U.S.” by Modern Healthcare magazine.

Medical Innovation: The Dream of More Cures and More Industry Success

Can we, as a society, stimulate medical innovation? If so, how? These are key questions facing Congress as it considers amendments to the FDA user fee reauthorization legislation. The answers are of central importance to FDA, patients and industry. So far, most of the “solutions” being considered by Congress (legislatively) and FDA (administratively) are worthwhile and likely to have a positive impact over time.

However, in FDA Matters’ view, the challenge of stimulating medical innovation mostly lies outside the policy sphere. Instead, achieving more cures and more industry success requires substantive and attitudinal changes inside the research and development process itself.

Simply put, most of what can be done externally to stimulate medical innovation is important, but marginal. The biggest changes must come from industry and academia.

  New biomedical knowledge   is being generated every day, some of it quite extraordinary. The challenge is aligning that knowledge into safe and effective medical products. That process requiring inspiration, ingenuity, luck, capital and incredible amounts of hard work. Unsurprisingly, success is hard to achieve.

Regulatory agencies, legislatures, patients, consumers and payers all have a role to play and can definitely influence the success of the research and development process and, thereby, stimulate medical innovation. However, all of those efforts come to naught unless there is:

• an initial discovery or insight from researchers and inventors
• followed by carefully planned development and clinical trials
• concluding with proof that a medical product is safe and effective for its intended use.

 It is the researchers, development teams, product managers, and corporate executives, along with investors and shareholders, who hold the key to medical innovation.

Numerous CEO surveys say otherwise, with a plurality and sometimes a majority asserting that FDA is a major obstacle to their company’s success. However, these CEO’s are hardly objective judges of their own product pipeline. Very few ever acknowledge that regulatory concerns might be justified.  When faced with slow-moving projects, failed trials and agency rejections, the natural response of many is to blame FDA.  

Reality can be hard for CEO’s to accept. Medical innovation is a tough business, as witnessed by the startlingly large numbers of drugs (and to a lesser extent, complicated devices) that don’t survive late stage development. However, with a few exceptions, the inability to prove safety and/or efficacy--not FDA policy or reviewers-- are the primary cause of product failures.

This does not absolve FDA, just places the focus on the companies, where it belongs. For its part, FDA knows it can do better and is committed to supporting medical innovation For example, the agency has already agreed (on its own initiative and through support of legislation) that:

• Some medical products should be moved along faster in the process than they are now.
• More early-stage meetings with companies would reduce late-stage problems.
• Greater flexibility is needed with particularly promising compounds.
• Areas of unmet medical needs and where trials are particularly challenging should be given more attention.  
• Development of new methodologies, such as  adaptive trials and proper use of patient-reported outcomes, is a key component of advancing regulatory science.

FDA and Congress seem to be doing a good job of working on these issues. We will see the results in the user fee reauthorization process and other amendments, as well as new policies and pathways being developed at FDA. Hopefully, we will also see Congress support these activities through increased appropriated funding of FDA.

These external changes planned by Congress and FDA are valuable in their own right and will certainly result in some good approvals that might not otherwise have occurred.

However, stimulating a significant increase in approvals of medically-innovative products requires industry to: support more biomedical and bioengineering discoveries, carefully plan development, and achieve proof of safety and efficacy. This past week, the CEO of Eli Lilly, which faces patent expirations and generic competition, stated “I don’t think we can save [cost-cut] our way out of the enormous challenge we face. The best course is to maintain our focus on advancing our pipeline.” 

Exactly so. While FDA and Congress are doing their part, our focus shouldn’t wander too far from where it belongs. The key to medical innovation is better and smarter drug and device development. Nothing will help patients or companies if medical innovators don’t innovate.

Steven

Proposals to Speed-Up Drug Approvals: Not Created Equal

An important part of the 2012 user fee reauthorization cycle is Congressional efforts to push FDA toward approving drugs and biologics more rapidly. Most of industry and a large number of patient groups agree. Proposals to speed up FDA are already in play.

Since these proposals have a common purpose, it is easy to think of them as alike. However, most are different from each other—in focus, intent, and likely impact on the agency’s existing decisionmaking process. This is FDA Matters’ analysis of why proposals to speed up drug approvals can’t be lumped together and why FDA may support some, but not others.

Is FDA really too slow? Efforts to speed up drug approvals start with an implicit assumption: FDA is approving drugs too slowly. The conventional wisdom is that FDA’s positioning swings over time like a pendulum. FDA allegedly gets "too easy" with its approvals, but then a few years later is faced with a major product recall over safety issues.

The FDA then hunkers down and the pendulum swings toward being slow and rigid. Finally, the bad experience becomes less immediate in the agency's mind and the pendulum swings back toward “too easy” and the cycle starts again.  

The FDA mindset. FDA hates this metaphor, but secretly fears it might be true. As a result, the agency has been working toward being more consistent....and less prone to the alleged pendulum swing. Among other things, the agency is trying to publish more official guidances and handle perceived blockages proactively (e.g. prospects for obesity drugs seem to have improved since the failure of three such drugs to gain approval in 2010).

Some of this spirit of change is reflected in the agency’s October 2011 white paper, Driving Biomedical Innovation:  Initiatives to Improve Products for Patients. Likewise, as part of the new user fee workplans, FDA and industry agreed to work together, particularly earlier in the development process, so that there are fewer surprises and more approvals. 

Proposals for speeding up drug approvals.  Improving the existing accelerated approval process is the goal of the Faster Access to Specialized Treatments or FAST Act (HR 4132) and section 301 of the Transforming the Regulatory Environment to Accelerate Access to Treatments or TREAT Act (S. 2113).

Accelerated approval allows surrogate endpoints as the basis for demonstrating efficacy. FDA uses this example: “instead of having to wait to learn if a drug actually can extend the survival of cancer patients, the FDA might now approve a drug based on evidence that the drug shrinks tumors because tumor shrinkage is considered reasonably likely to predict a real clinical benefit.”

The two bills would broaden the means to demonstrate clinical benefit by encouraging use of emerging scientific methods and tools and allowing a wider range of surrogate and clinical endpoints. The bills would explicitly codify the accelerated pathway in law.

A different approach is taken in the Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act or the Breakthrough Act (S. 2236).  This bill would “provide more flexibility when a drug or treatment shows dramatic responses early in development, while still ensuring drug safety and efficacy. For patients, this proposal would allow FDA the ability to move towards more innovative clinical trials, such as minimizing the number of patients enrolled in trials and shortening the duration of trials, when scientifically appropriate.”

This reflects a reality: FDA often feels constrained in situations where common sense dictates special handling. An example might be a new melanoma treatment that was approved in August 2012, after receiving significant assistance from FDA to move the drug forward rapidly. However, after reading an earlier NY Times article, it is easy to imagine that FDA might have been even more flexible, but felt constrained.

Finally, some commentators have included former FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach recent Wall Street Journal article in their discussion of “speeding up FDA approvals.” He advocated “creating FDA pilot programs to bring promising therapies to patients more quickly by allowing them to be approved based on safety, with efficacy to be proven in later trials.”

Speculation on FDA’s position. FDA is certain to oppose Dr. von Eschenbach’s proposal if offered as a legislative amendment. However, FDA is still deciding its position on FAST/TREAT and the Breakthrough Act.

In response to a Congressional question, FDA spoke favorably of the Breakthrough Act.  The key is that FDA is given discretion to provide more rapid and higher level process, but is not directed to change the standard of proof or the meaning of efficacy or safety.

FDA has been more hesitant about FAST/TREAT. Informally, it opposed a prior iteration because, among other things, it lowered standards by not requiring prior validation of a surrogate endpoint.  My understanding is that FDA is considering whether its concerns have been addressed by these later versions of the bills.

Steven

FDA Progress “At Risk:” An Update on Funding and a Call to Action

FDA Matters’ State of the FDA—January 2012 identified agency funding as the greatest threat to the FDA’s future. The agency received a very small increase in FY 12 appropriated funding, reflecting the severe budgetary pressure on all U.S. federal agencies. That pressure continues and FDA faces potential cuts in FY 13 (starting October 1, 2012).

Advocacy by the Alliance for a Stronger FDA and other stakeholder groups is critical to sustaining the agency’s appropriated funding and pressing Congress for increases to meet the growing demands on FDA. This column explains the budget situation and calls upon all stakeholders to support increased FDA funding. 

FDA was massively underfunded for two decades. Since 2007, Congress has reversed course and increased the agency from $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion in annual appropriated (non-user fee) funding. The agency is also viewed much more favorably than it was then.

However, the agency received a miniscule $50 million increase in FY 12 appropriated funding. Although this was more than many federal agencies, it is inadequate for FDA’s growing responsibilities. Even still, the agency made good progress on its key objectives in FY 12, mostly by stretching the dollars as best it could.

FY 13 funding could be much worse, while the agency’s responsibilities continue to grow. New Congressional mandates include the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (biosimilars), and bio-defense. In addition, amendments to the user fee reauthorization legislation will impose new requirements (unfunded mandates) on the agency beyond what will be paid for by user fees.

The other sources of growth in FDA’s responsibilities are unrelated to Congress. These include: continuing growth and increased demands of globalization; science’s growing complexity; agency initiatives to promote innovation and regulatory science; and “the unexpected,” whether new foodborne pathogens, drug shortages, or new scientific discoveries that add to the agency’s responsibilities.

FDA must overcome two barriers to obtain more funding. The first relates to how Congress views FDA. Does Congress recognize FDA as providing essential governmental services that must be supported, regardless of budget cuts? Does Congress view FDA as doing a good job with the money it receives? In particular, has it used the increased funding over the last 6 years to improve its effectiveness? Does Congress feel any urgency about funding those FDA activities (e.g. implementation of FSMA) that can only occur if funding is increased in FY 13? 

The second barrier is the overall environment in which budget decisions are being made, especially the aggregate amounts Congress is willing to spend on domestic discretionary programs. The FY 12 appropriations process was driven by pressures to reduce spending. Largely because of lower House spending ceilings, FDA faced the possibility of a $275 million cut under the House-passed bill. FY 13 now looks like it may become a repeat of last year, with the House again choosing lower aggregate spending levels than the Senate. This sets up the possibility (maybe even likelihood) that the House will again vote for a large cut in FDA funding, while the Senate may be barely able to maintain current funding levels.

This is not an acceptable situation. FDA oversees nearly 25% of all consumer spending and touches the lives of every American every day. It’s not just the food, drugs and devices that we commonly think about, but also vaccines, diagnostics, cosmetics, pet food, dietary supplements and so on.

Further, as this blog’s growing global readership  attests….FDA’s decisions affects the lives of hundreds of millions of people outside the U.S. Many countries rely on FDA’s standards of quality and its regulatory decisions. Further, every country in the world is part of the global market in the import and export of FDA-regulated products.

Belonging to the Alliance for a Stronger FDA helps demonstrate support for the FDA. The Alliance’s membership includes all stakeholders —consumer, patient and research advocacy groups, professional societies, companies and trade groups, consulting firms and individuals. A stronger FDA is the only thing they all agree upon…and this carries great weight with Congress. The Alliance’s views on FY 13 FDA funding can be found here. 

For more information about the Alliance, go to www.StrengthenFDA.org or write to me at sgrossman@StrengthenFDA.org.

Steven 

For purposes of disclosure: I am one of the founders and serve as Deputy Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.

My duties with the Alliance are in addition to, and apart from, the work of my policy and regulatory consulting firm, HPS Group, LLC., which is the publisher of FDA Matters.  The views expressed in FDA Matters are my own, and those of HPS Group, and are not the views or positions of the Alliance.

The FDA Matters “Guide to the User Fee Reauthorization Process”

The prescription drug (PDUFA) and medical device (MDUFA) user fee programs, which run for 5 years, must be renewed by September 30 of this year (last day of the current fiscal year).  House committee staff has just released a 205-page first draft of reauthorization legislation. The Senate has starting releasing drafts on specific issues and has a March 29 hearing scheduled.

Because the PDUFA and MDUFA provisions are pre-negotiated by FDA with industry and patient groups, they are likely to change little. Congress’ focus will be on the backlog of FDA-related legislative proposals that have accumulated while awaiting a “must pass” FDA legislative vehicle. This is FDA Matters’ guide to the process and likely amendments.

To understand the unfolding process for user fee reauthorization in 2012, it is useful to think in terms of four levels of legislative proposals that Congress will consider.

Level One: Renewal of Existing Legislation and Uncontroversial New User Fees. In addition to PDUFA and MDUFA, there are two other programs on the same 5-year reauthorization cycle. The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) are certain to be reauthorized and may be made permanent.

In this same level are two proposed new user fee programs: the Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA) and the Biosimilars User Fee Act (BSUFA).  These have gone through an abbreviated version of the PDUFA and MDUFA negotiation process, meaning that the FDA proposals reflect input from industry, patient groups and other stakeholders.

Level Two:  Areas of Strong Consensus to Act; Specific Provisions Not Yet Agreed Upon. Despite Congress’ deep partisan differences, there are several areas in which both political parties appear to be in general agreement about adding programs or strengthening authorities at FDA. 

In this level are proposals dealing with drug shortages, incentives for antibiotic drug development, import safety, a core set of medical device process reforms, and some adjustment in the FDA “accelerated approval” pathway for drug and biological products. There is also consensus for dealing with drug supply chain integrity (e.g. anti-counterfeiting), which may be advanced as a separate bill this spring or be folded into the reauthorization legislation.

For the most part, the consensus to act in these areas does not yet include specific legislative language that has bi-partisan support in both the House and Senate. So negotiations are certain, may even be testy at times…but final agreements are near-certain.

Level Three: Areas of Disagreement Where Compromises Are Possible. Ultimately, committee leadership will have to deal with FDA amendments where there are sharp disagreements or a lack of consensus that action is needed.

The two most prominent such issues are the extent of medical device reform and the amount of change needed or appropriate for the drug approval process. In both areas, there is a more limited, core set of proposals that are in level 2.

As with all such areas of disagreement, compromises may ultimately develop. Unlike the issues in level two, these proposals start with disagreements that may lead to negotiations, but with no assurance of inclusion in final legislation.

Beyond those mentioned, the list of issues and amendments that might be offered (and controversial) is limitless, but it is possible that we will see Congress again debating drug re-importation, re-opening the 2010 biosimilars legislation or even considering amendments to Hatch-Waxman. There may also be food safety amendments.

Level Four: Proposals to Dramatically Re-shape FDA and Likely to Be Rejected. A small number of Members of Congress think FDA’s role should be significantly smaller. They see radical surgery on the agency mission as the necessary response to the restraints they feel the agency imposes on industry and on patient access to new therapies.

The possibility exists for amendments that might substantially reduce the agency’s jurisdiction over medical devices or significantly roll back the 1962 Kefauver Amendments that require drugs to demonstrate efficacy (not just safety) before entering the market. There is no reason to think there is a majority in either the Senate or the House for such radical reform or substantial reduction in FDA’s mission. Nonetheless, such proposals may be offered.

Conclusion.  In enacting a timely reauthorization of the user fee programs, Congress will need to consider a range of legislative proposals. As these are offered and discussed, this FDA Matters analysis provides a guide to understanding Congressional activities.

Steven

This blog column is a much-shortened version of an article I wrote that appears in the March 2012 issue of Scrip Regulatory Affairs, entitled “Reauthorizing US FDA User Fees: A Slow-Moving Train Wreck?” Readers interested in a copy of the longer article should contact me at sgrossman@fdamatters.com.

Quality and Safety “Just Don’t Get No Respect”

In every successful company, the glittery careers and the recognizable names belong to people who develop new products that meet consumer and patient needs. Innovation in new products (and careful husbanding of intellectual property and market share) is what brings in the revenue and determines corporate success.

By comparison, there is little recognition and often sparse resources for the people devoted to making sure those products (new and old) are safe and of high-quality. The best product ever developed is worthless, and possibly harmful, if standards are not maintained and manufacture and supply carefully monitored. The stakes are so much higher for FDA-regulated products.

FDA Matters has previously analyzed how “safe” has many meanings. My focus in this column is the safety of processing, manufacturing and distribution of FDA-regulated products. Is the milk we drink safe from adulteration (either intentional or unintentional)? Are medical devices manufactured with sufficient precision?

Does every batch of a biological product deliver consistently safe results? Are sterile conditions maintained when drugs are manufactured? The list of questions is endless because there are a limitless number of ways in which products can be unsafe.   

When FDA Matters has covered quality and safety issues in the past, we have almost always mentioned our suspicion that CEO’s and others in the corporate suites are not concerned enough.  It is reflected in the recalls, the extended plant closings, the drug shortages caused by suppliers unable to produce quality products, and the number of inspection reports (483’s) that contain substantive and non-trivial problems.

We assume that CEO’s want to produce safe and high-quality products. After all, it is bad for business to do otherwise. Yet, we suspect too many corporate executives are overly focused on new product development, marketing and sales and worry too little about the quality and safety of what they already produce.

Close accountability and adequate resources are the necessary ingredients of quality and safety. Too often, the opposite appears to be the case in corporations: inattention, underfunding, delegation to distant subordinates and overreliance on vendor guarantees.

FDA won’t back down from its vigilance. Commissioner Hamburg’s reorganization of the agency was, in part, to consolidate authority over quality and safety and put it in the hands of an immediate subordinate. Dr. Hamburg did what I hope every corporation would do—insist on closer accountability to the CEO with regard to production of safe, high-quality products. This becomes more urgent as the scope of this responsibility becomes global, more complex and harder to manage.

The foundation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act was enacted so long ago and generally has been so successful, it is easy to forget that FDA was created and built for the specific purpose of protecting consumers and the public health from dangerous products. It is the FDA that cleaned up the market in tonics and patent medicines, ensured there were serious consequences for companies that adulterated food and drug products, and created a basic public trust in the foods, medicines, devices and cosmetics that we use daily.

Quality and safety of FDA-regulated products is also on the mind of Congress. A little more than a year ago, it passed the Food Safety Modernization Act, a thorough overhaul of our nation’s approach to assuring Americans have a safe food supply in a global environment.

This year, as part of the reauthorization of user fee legislation, Congress is probably going to adopt additional provisions addressing the safety of drug imports, the need to eliminate drug shortages, and the necessity of supply chain integrity. Also in that legislation will be the Generic Drug User Fee Act, which funds a significant expansion of FDA’s efforts to inspect generic drug facilities.

Industry, Congress and FDA need to continue their focus on innovation and new products. This is the path that will bring better lives to Americans and allow our nation to better compete in the global economy.

While doing so, they must also pay sufficient attention and provide adequate resources to the fundamental, but less glamorous, job of assuring the processing, manufacturing and distribution of safe, high-quality FDA-regulated products. We must insist on this standard in the American marketplace.

Steven

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

FDA and Industry Relations: A Mix of Frustration and Respect

There is no one answer to the question: what is the state of FDA-industry relations? FDA Matters hears some say: FDA does what industry asks it to do, the agency is a puppet. Others say that FDA is obstinately blocking industries’ path to new, better and innovative products. Yet others say FDA is misguided at points, but well-intentioned and most often right.

The state of FDA-industry relations turns out to be particularly important in 2012. As part of the user fee reauthorization legislation, Congress will be faced with non-user fee amendments affecting every aspect of FDA’s mission, programs and decisions. Industry will be advocating for some; trying to block others, based in part on its relationship with FDA.   

Looking at the situation superficially:

• FDA and the biopharmaceutical industry would appear to be on good terms. Negotiating the language and terms of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) reauthorization went relatively smoothly and the agreement addresses a number of industry concerns
• FDA and the medical device industry would appear to be on shaky terms, at best. The negotiations on the reauthorization of the Medical Devices User Fee Act (MDUFA) have been extended and contentious. Only in the last few days has there been an agreement in principle on a proposal for MDUFA reauthorization.    
• FDA and the food industry would appear to be on excellent terms. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) passed in late December 2010. Consumers and most of industry supported the legislation and there has been cooperation by industry on implementation.

In each case, things are more complicated beneath the surface.

Drugs and biologics. Industry is broadly supporting FDA’s proposal for reauthorization of PDUFA, having helped negotiate a number of provisions that will improve the drug development, review and approval model used by the agency. When it comes to the additional amendments to be considered by Congress, the unanimity is already breaking down.  

For example, during 2011, The Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO) released a series of proposals for improving FDA. FDA Matters praised BIO for putting forth a bold agenda, while seeing its centerpiece proposal, a new “progressive approval” pathway, as only a starting point for discussion. In a tacit acknowledgement of FDA opposition (not publicly expressed by FDA) and industry dissension, BIO has recently started advocating instead for changes in the existing FDA accelerated approval process.

Medical devices. The difficult relationship between FDA and the medical device industry is long-standing. Both sides have been able to talk, often quite productively, but ultimately the device industry returns to its default position that the FDA needs to be held accountable for its inconsistent guidance and lack of timeliness in its reviews.

The just-released MDUFA reauthorization agreement in principle (in the form of FDA meeting notes) looks like it can bridge the gap that has divided FDA and the medical device industry…or at least that’s my interpretation of industry and FDA press statements.  However, Congress may yet amend the proposal if industry proves divided  in its support.  As to non-user fee amendments in the medical device area, it is to be assumed (given the history) that they will tend toward contentious, with FDA on the defensive.

Food.  Public discussion of the user fee reauthorization legislation has focused on drug and medical device issues, but nothing prevents food from becoming part of the mix. Any issues or amendments left over from the FSMA debate are fair game, as would anything that went into the final legislation despite objection from FDA or some interest group.  

One of the most prominent “leftover” issues is the extent of fees collected from the food industry to support FDA activities (merely calling them “user fees” is enough to generate a heated discussion). While the issue may come up regardless, there is a strong chance that the President’s budget request will contain legislative proposals for new food fees, starting in FY 13.

Conclusion. As the user fee reauthorization legislation moves forward, it may be too much to ask for fair debate, FDA-industry harmony, and quick resolution of outstanding issues. Time is of the essence—the real deadline is closer to July 1 than September 30

It would also be wonderful if all parties (including Congress and industry) would stick with the issues and refrain from bashing FDA. 

Steven

User Fee Reauthorization: FDA Is In Trouble If 2007 Repeats Itself

Starting this week, the House will hold hearings on reauthorizing the drug and medical device user fee programs that fund one-fourth of the agency. While user fees have become largely non-controversial, this “must-pass” legislation is Congress’ opportunity to consider dozens of other FDA issues, some controversial and many time-consuming.

During the last user fee reauthorization in 2007, multiple non-user fee issues delayed enactment of a new law until September 27, just a few days before the start of the new fiscal year. In FDA Matters’ view, FDA is in serious trouble in 2012 if it once again takes until September to complete the user fee reauthorization legislation.  

There are two user fee programs up for reauthorization this year: the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and the Medical Device User Fee Act (MDUFA). In addition, two new user fee programs have been proposed by FDA. One covers generic drugs and the other biosimilars and interchangeable biologics.

If only these four user fees were at stake (two renewals, two new), Congress could conceivably be finished by July 1, 2012. This would be optimum for giving FDA enough time to invoice and collect the user fees for the coming fiscal year (FY 13). It would also give FDA time to start making new hires and to work on any additional requirements in the new law. A lot of things could be in place by the start of the fiscal year on October 1, 2012.

However, almost no FDA legislation has passed since the last reauthorization five years ago. Pent-up demand for FDA amendments is enormous and delays are to be expected. July 1 does not look like a realistic target to complete legislation.

What happened in 2007 is beyond instructive, it is frightening. As a general precaution, FDA left many staff positions vacant during 2007, just in case the user fee monies were not renewed. As required by law, FDA compiled lists of employees it could not pay if user fee monies were not available on October 1, 2007. The agency narrowly avoided actually having to send out RIF (lay-off) notices to individual employees. While the RIF process was a formality, this created a great deal of distraction within the agency. 

Simultaneously, the timing for invoicing companies and collecting fees was disrupted and fee revenue was not collected, as it usually is, by October 1. While FDA was dealing with this (which required delays in hiring), it faced the harsh reality that many provisions of the new law became effective immediately and had to be addressed with existing staff.

Memories seem to vary about the impact in 2007. I remember significant problems; others have told me the disruption was not consequential. In fact, there is direct evidence of the impact.

Below is a slide from a December 2011 presentation given by Dr. John Jenkins, head of the Office of New Drugs (OND) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). His intent was not to focus on 2007 or to draw comparisons, but the point seems quite clear.

The chart shows the number of pending drug applications on which FDA was behind schedule (as judged by the timeframes established in the user fee law). The green bars represent the most important applications, those involving new molecular entities (NMEs). The light blue bars represent other drug and biologics applications, while the violet bars represent applications for additional efficacy indications.

A backlog started to form in the second half of 2007. It increased significantly and lasted for more than 24 months. There may well have been other factors at work, but it seems more than a coincidence that the problems started at the same time as the disruption caused by the new law.

If 2012 becomes a repeat of 2007, then FDA will find itself under withering criticism later this year for not reviewing innovative drug applications in a timely fashion. Medical device are likely to be similarly impacted. FDA will be unhappy, companies with pending applications will be outraged, and patients will be short-changed as potential new therapies are delayed.

Congress needs to commit to speed up the process, minimize amendments, and make new provisions effective six months or a year after enactment. What is possible by July 1 is a House-Senate agreement on a very limited piece of non-controversial legislation that addresses user fees and perhaps one or two other items.

It is a disservice to FDA and the public health for Congress to do otherwise.

Steven

The State of the FDA—January 2012

FDA is the only federal agency that touches the lives of every American several times every day. Its remarkably broad mandate includes all medical products and 80% of the nation’s food supply, plus countless other products. Despite this, when the President delivers his State of the Union (SOTU) address to Congress this week, it is unlikely that FDA will rate a mention.

FDA Matters will instead provide its second annual “State of the FDA.” As reflected in last week’s column, FDA did well in 2011, but one year’s progress does not change the continued precarious state of the FDA. Here is our analysis:

Strengths: FDA’s most important strength is the dedication of the agency’s staff  and the leadership of Commissioner Hamburg’s team. In the current environment, their efforts are invisible to the public they serve and largely unappreciated. If safe foods and safe and effective medications are important to you, say “thank you” to the FDA staff that make it possible.

The agency’s independence is another key strength of the FDA. At the moment, many FDA observers don’t see it that way, viewing the HHS Secretary’s decision to overrule FDA on Plan B as evidence that the agency is weak and dependent. However, Plan B is a ‘one-of-a –kind” controversy, presenting uniquely difficult and combustible issues that aren't present in 99.9 percent of FDA's decisions. If you look at the totality of FDA actions, the agency is remarkably independent from HHS and the White House. Rather than a weakness, this is one of the agency’s strengths.

Weaknesses: Despite a number of recent, laudable efforts at improvement, the FDA is still disorganized and largely ineffective in communicating its messages to the public, media, stakeholders and Congress. Notably, an analysis published in the journal, Medical Care, last week concluded that: although some [FDA] communication efforts had a strong and immediate effect, many had little or no impact on drug use or health behaviors and several had unintended consequences.

FDA’s information technology (IT) systems continue to be grossly inadequate for an agency with such large, far-flung and complex responsibilities. Some progress has been made with analytic data bases, such as the Sentinel program to track post-market safety, and with data bases that improve the flow of information within the agency and between field and headquarters. The October 2011 appointment of a new chief information officer with industry experience is a hopeful sign.

Opportunities: The promise of science has never been brighter. And Dr. Hamburg, to her credit, has made it a priority to improve the agency’s scientific bench strength—better credentials, better training and better tools.

This provides FDA and the medical products industries with the opportunity to forge a new “social contract” with regard to scientific standards and product approvals. FDA must commit to becoming less formalistic and bureaucratic in its dealings with companies. It must demonstrate (not just accept) that advancing medical innovation is an integral part of the FDA’s role in promoting public health. In turn, industry needs to accept that “science, fairly evaluated within predictable guidelines,” is an appropriate expectation as opposed to a system based on short-cuts to market and ill-defined, “leap of faith” assumptions about safety and efficacy. In addition, industry bashing of FDA needs to end. It is counterproductive to everyone’s interests.

Equally promising is the opportunity to significantly upgrade the safety of the American food supply. Even with the devotion of FDA staff to this cause, we are lucky that the reported levels of foodborne disease and product adulteration are not higher. The year-old Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is, by general agreement, a blueprint for moving to a new level, one where a safer food supply reflects smart decisions.

Threats: The largest threat to FDA is inadequate funding. As science has become more complex, industry more global and information more integral to every human interaction, FDA oversees a rapidly expanding portfolio of products and responsibilities. Even without the threat of budget cuts facing all federal agencies, it would be hard to grow the FDA budget enough to stay ahead.

A related threat is the potential for massive expansion of FDA’s unfunded mandates during Congressional reauthorization of the drug and medical device user fee programs. FDA is almost certain to be given new (and needed) authority for drug import inspections and drug shortages. In addition, Congress will consider and most likely pass a dozen or more other new programs or significant changes in FDA regulation. FDA will almost certainly have to implement these new requirements without additional appropriations. 

Steven

For those who may be interested, here is a link to “The State of the FDA—January 2011” http://www.fdamatters.com/?p=1240.

FDA and Congress: Prospects for 2012

Barely more than a year ago, the US experienced a “wave” election—sweeping a Republic majority into the House of Representatives and reducing the Democratic majority in the Senate. As a result, FDA faced a Congress in 2011 that contained fewer friends and less support than previously.

The consequences, thus far, have been small. Congress became so absorbed with deficit reduction that it accomplished little else this year and spent almost no time on FDA issues. Circumstances will change this in 2012 and, fortunately, we have strong clues about Congressional attitudes and priorities.

At the end of 2010, FDA Matters devoted six blog columns to examining the impact of the election on FDA and its regulated industries. As predicted, Congress was more interested in deficit reduction in 2011 than any other topic. This shows no sign of abating.

For FDA, this means constant pressure from Congress on funding, particularly from sequestration and other threats of across-the-board cuts in federal spending. FDA’s best position is always to have its needs evaluated on an individual agency basis—rather than being part of a larger funding action.

Congress chose not to address FDA’s FY 11 appropriation in the post-election session. Instead, it addressed this in April of 2011 on fairly favorable terms to the agency.

Similarly, FY 12 appropriations demonstrated that Congress was still receptive to partially meeting FDA’s growing resource needs, but it became clearer that future funding increases will be even harder to get. Arguments for FDA being an exception to deficit reduction will be made often next year by agency supporters within Congress and by outside advocates.

In general, very little legislation passed Congress in 2011 and virtually none without bi-partisan support. FDA Matters pointed out that achieving such consensus was possible on FDA issues when Democrats from technology-oriented regions joined with Republicans on positions that could enjoy industry/patient or industry/consumer support. This approach did not produce any legislation in 2011.

However, technology-oriented Democrats are likely to join Republicans in shaping the user fee reauthorization legislation, which Congress “must-pass” in 2012. It seems certain that the bi-partisan pathways will produce most of the legislation, including new authority for drug import inspections, incentives for development of antibiotics and provisions to address drug shortages.

I expected a substantial ramp-up of Congressional oversight and investigations of FDA and regulated industries, which never materialized. There were a few hearings, but never the vehemence or persistence that would have represented a major change from the previous Congress.  I still believe there will be an uptick in these activities, but most likely it will be deferred until late 2012 or 2013, after Congress adopts the user fee reauthorization legislation.

A final column last year asked the provocative question: will the new Congress be good for FDA-regulated industries? Republicans generally want federal regulations and regulatory agencies trimmed back significantly. In contrast, FDA-regulated industries generally want more flexible regulatory requirements and greater certainty in their implementation, but are not interested in eliminating FDA’s regulatory responsibilities or limiting its ability to assure public health and safety.

So far, this Congress has not come to a firm conclusion about FDA. It has not embraced FDA as an essential government service—like national defense and air-traffic controllers—but neither has it marked FDA as a particular target to starve, roll-back, harass or marginalize.

The deciding factor may be how FDA responds to Congress’ insistence that FDA be a positive force in the advancement of American innovation and a contributor to US competitiveness. This is precipitating an identity crisis at FDA, which the agency is working hard to resolve.

If FDA succeeds in integrating innovation into its mission, priorities and processes, then Congress will be able to see FDA (and the support it enjoys) as being essentially different than other regulatory agencies that do not have widespread public support.  This is the optimum position for FDA in its relationship with Congress.

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.”

FDA’s Fuzzy Funding Future

While not all of FDA’s problems are caused by a lack of resources, few of its problems can be solved without better funding. Money matters. “Safer foods” requires funding to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act. “Faster and safer drug and device approvals” are only possible with funds to pay additional reviewers and build improved regulatory systems.

FDA has an enormous job and its responsibilities grow every year. Funding increases over the last five years have not offset decades of underfunding and under-investment in the agency. FDA Matters believes the next 12 months will determine FDA's funding future.

The Outlook for Appropriations. FDA’s FY 12 funding is now set. The agency will have $50 million more to spend this fiscal year, for a total of $2.5 billion. While this increase is not large, FDA did quite well in the face of a possible $285 million cut. The agency was one of the few federal programs to receive more dollars than in FY 11.

 It’s too early to project next year’s appropriation. The President’s FY 13 request will be released in early February 2012. Because the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 requires aggregate domestic discretionary spending to be lower than FY 12, competition for funding will become even more intense. Congress will need to be persuaded that FDA funding is a priority and needs to be an exception to funding constraints.

Also as a result of BCA, there is a very real threat to FY 13 FDA funding, as part of mandatory across-the-board cuts (“sequestration”) scheduled to take place on January 1, 2013. Unless Congress passes substantial deficit reduction legislation next year in lieu of sequestration, FDA must prepare for a possible cut in the range of $150 million to $250 million.   

Prospects for User Fees. In addition to appropriations, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) provides FDA with supplemental funding from industry to support review of applications for new drugs and biologics. A similar program (MDUFMA) supports review of medical devices. There are also several smaller fee programs, as well as user fees that support the FDA’s tobacco center.  This chart shows the amount and growth of revenue derived from industry fees:  

All numbers approximate	FY 2009	FY 2010	FY 2011
PDUFA	$    512 million	$    573 million	$   667 million
MDUFMA	$      47 million	$      57 million	$     57 million
TOBACCO	------	$    235 million	$   450 million
All Fee Revenue (inc. smaller programs)	$    637 million	$    922 million	$ 1.224  billion

PDUFA and MDUFMA are expected to be renewed in FY 12 with higher revenue targets. With so much pressure on appropriations, Congress will be tempted to see user fees as the answer to FDA’s growing funding needs. However, user fees are only available for specific purposes and do not support FDA’s full mission.

Further, Congress has no qualms about increasing the amount of user fees, then bemoaning the agency’s increasing reliance on industry funding.  This is not a situation where “all money is green.” Increases in appropriated funding are still critical to a well-functioning FDA.

Delays in Enacting User Fee Legislation and the Possible Impact of Unfunded Mandates. FDA’s future funding is further obscured by the nature of the process of renewing the user fee programs. For example, delays in adopting legislation could result in funding shortages in early FY 13, making it harder for FDA to fulfill its obligations. In turn, this will contribute to Congressional concerns about whether FDA is spending monies efficiently and effectively.

Further, Congress “must pass” renewal of user fee programs in 2012, creating a situation where multiple FDA-related amendments are certain to be considered. Such amendments, if they become law, are likely to expand the agency’s responsibilities without adding additional funds for implementation.

Steven

Here are November 2011 columns you may have missed:

Animal Research: An Update on One of FDA’s Core Values     November 22nd, 2011

Bold Discussions: Possible New Approval Pathways for Breakthrough Drugs November 14th, 2011

By Whose Standards: FDA’s Identity Crisis and the Level Playing Field  November 7th, 2011

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

Bold Discussions: Possible New Approval Pathways for Breakthrough Drugs

For discussion purposes, let’s assume that there is a broad consensus that patients would benefit if new drugs and devices could get to the US market sooner. Current market barriers can be fearsome: long timeframes, high cost and regulatory uncertainty.  How can we fix this problem? What costs and risks are involved in getting products to patients faster?

These are old questions, renewed this year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s (BIO) proposal to create a “progressive approval” process. This is controversial, but also worthy of widespread discussion. FDA Matters finds itself interested and open-minded about ways to permit earlier market-access if patients will benefit and the safety risk minimized.

Currently, FDA has several mechanisms for helping drugs move faster through the approval process, but only one might be said to be an alternative pathway. FDA describes it as follows:

ACCELERATED APPROVAL:  [I]n 1992 FDA instituted the Accelerated Approval regulation, allowing earlier approval of drugs to treat serious diseases, and that fill an unmet medical need based on a surrogate endpoint….For example…FDA might now approve a drug based on evidence that the drug shrinks tumors because tumor shrinkage is considered reasonably likely to predict a real clinical benefit [e.g. prolonged survival].

Since creation of the program, FDA has granted an average of about four accelerated approvals to drugs each year, sometimes for more than one clinical indication. More than half of these indications have been shown subsequently to have clinical benefit and FDA has converted the approval from accelerated to regular. Others accelerated approval drugs are still being studied and a few have been withdrawn.  

FDA has itself shown interest in moving beyond accelerated approval. Early this fall, FDA released a report, Driving Biomedical Innovation: Initiatives to Improve Products for Patients. In a section entitled “Expedited Drug Development Pathway,” the agency observes:

Sometimes during the development of a new drug to treat a serious or life-threatening disease that has few therapeutic options, the new treatment performs much better than standard-of-care in the early trials. While there is general agreement that such a drug should be developed quickly, there is not a common understanding of how to appropriately speed up development while simultaneously gathering adequate evidence about the performance of the product.

FDA envisions a series of meeting with stakeholders to develop this concept and answer a number of difficult questions about the nature of a new pathway and how it could be implemented.

Consistent with this, BIO had already been talking about transforming the FDA approval process by permitting a “progressive approval” and market access for innovative products that:

• treat an unmet medical need,
• significantly advance the standard of care, or
• are highly targeted therapies for distinct sub-populations.

The November 11, 2011 BioCentury reported that Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) will be circulating draft legislation to create two new FDA approval pathways, presumably beginning the process of providing details for BIO’s concept. Here are the new approaches:

• Progressive approval would require data "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit, the standard currently used for accelerated approval. Unlike accelerated approval, drugs could receive progressive approval without data from a surrogate endpoint.
• Exceptional approval could be granted when the data necessary to satisfy the standard for approval "cannot ethically, feasibly or practicably be generated."

Much more needs to be said about how these would be implemented. In particular, it is not uncommon for a drug to produce solid safety data and/or startlingly good efficacy data in phase 2 (preliminary human trials), then fail in phase 3 (clinical trials to support approval).

Even after we see the bill text, the BIO/Hagan effort must still be seen as a conversation starter. But it is a discussion well worth having.

Steven

Of possible interest to readers:

While the accelerated approval approach has been successful, it also raises a host of methodological questions. One of the best critiques is Professor Tom Fleming’s Surrogate Endpoints And FDA’s Accelerated Approval Process (Health Affairs, 2005).

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

A Salmon on Every Plate

President Herbert Hoover supposedly promised Americans “a chicken in every pot” during his 1928 campaign. Chicken was an expensive delicacy then, so his message was about raising living standards, not ending hunger. Today, chicken is a low-cost source of protein and a mainstay of the American diet.

FDA Matters hopes that salmon (and other fish) will also become sources of low-cost protein over the next two decades. FDA is nearing the end of a long regulatory process, the outcome of which could be approval of a faster growing genetically-engineered Atlantic salmon. FDA must overcome opposition 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 (GE) 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 vilify over a decade of scientific research and discredit several years of FDA review. Ultimately, the appeal is to emotion—that something dramatically new and different must automatically be dangerous. Decisions about new and different products are hard for FDA, as I wrote a few week weeks ago in a column entitled: “FDA and Things that Might Go Bump in the Night.”  

Approval of genetically-engineered animals will always require serious consideration of safety, environmental and ethical issues.  In this case—FDA’s first application for approval of a GE food product--the agency has been fortunate to have what might be considered a favorable factual context. No one questions the legitimate demands for more plentiful, high quality supplies of salmon. Further, the sponsor has agreed upon multiple redundant safeguards. For example, the GE salmon will be only sterile females and will be grown in inland fisheries with no access to either wild or farmed salmon stocks.

FDA has done its homework—digging deep into the relevant science and taking the time to consider all aspects of the issue. An agency decision is considered imminent and likely to be favorable….unless Congress tells it otherwise. A showdown may occur this week when the Senate considers the FY 12 appropriations bill for the Agriculture Department and FDA.

The House version already contains restrictive language forbidding the agency from spending any of its FY 12 monies to approve the application. However, according to some reports, only about a dozen Representatives were present when the amendment was adopted by voice vote during floor consideration.

In contrast, when the issue comes before the Senate this week, there will be debate and almost certainly a vote. Currently, about a dozen Senators are known to support the ban, with most of them from Alaska, California, Oregon and Washington, states that are the primary sources of Pacific salmon sold in the United States. 

Healthy, affordable high-protein food is always a desirable dietary option. At some time in the future, salmon could be as affordable as chicken if we allow the development of salmon that can be grown faster.  

The current fight is not just about “a salmon on every plate.” It is also about whether Congress will substitute its political judgments for FDA’s scientific decisionmaking. FDA Matters hopes that enough Senators will vote for FDA and against regional economic interests that want to protect existing sources of salmon production.

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

FDA and Things that Might Go Bump in the Night      September 18th, 2011

FDA’s everyday business requires balancing risk and benefit as these might apply to a particular medical product or a new food. Occasionally, FDA is faced with a much larger responsibility: judging a breakthrough technology that could bring great benefit or great sorrow to humankind. Who can confidently know in advance which it will be?

Still, FDA must decide. If they say “yes,” whole new industries and benefit may be created for patients and consumers. Or, the world and humankind may be subject to devastation. Today, the agency is faced with just such challenges in dealing with nanotechnology, genetically-engineered (GE) animals, and synthetic biology. Read the rest of this entry

Should Money Have a Seat at the FDA Table?

FDA’s traditional stakeholders are patients, consumers, health professionals, and industry.  Add Congress, media and other government agencies and you have the full set of FDA audiences. What they all have in common: a commitment to the public and individual health of Americans.

While FDA’s focus is health and safety, almost every decision has economic consequences.  Money is never far from the surface. Yet, to my knowledge, Wall Street has never been treated as a stakeholder or an audience of FDA. Now a variant has emerged: organized efforts by venture capitalists (VC) to affect how FDA evaluates drugs, biologics and devices.

Why do VCs care about FDA? Venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high risk, growth companies, usually start-ups. Such funding plays a critical role in a large number of medical products that FDA reviews for market approval.

If FDA is more open to innovation and new technology, venture capital firms are more likely to invest in medical product companies in the United States. Conversely, a hesitant, overly cautious FDA makes it more likely that venture capital monies will be used to fund information technology, telecommunications and software companies, rather than life-sciences companies.

What is the VC community doing now about FDA?  Last week, the Medical Innovation and Competitiveness Coalition held a press event, releasing a survey they had conducted in partnership with the National Venture Capital Association. www.nvca.org/vital_signs_data_slides.pdf

In attendance were Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), both members of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over FDA. The Senators’ interest is the prominent role that small companies and venture capital play in economic growth and job formation.

The survey of venture capital firms found a significant decreased commitment to investment in life sciences over the past 3 years, with more dollars aimed at overseas projects. According to the Wall Street Journal:

The chief reason [for decreased investment], according to most of the 156 venture firms surveyed, is dysfunction at the Food and Drug Administration, an agency investors say is so unpredictable and risk-averse that young companies are now inclined to merely give up on trying to get on the market in the U.S.

This is definitely attention-getting, but needs to be seen in context. VCs are the FDA’s natural critics. Having invested millions of dollars (and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars) in a company’s science and product pipeline, VCs are more likely to see product failures as a result of FDA deficiencies than their own failures to back successful products.  

However, the survey may still have a point….and VCs can be a powerful voice for a stronger, more predictable, science-based FDA.

How has FDA responded?  The Obama Administration has emphasized the importance of innovation in building the US economy. There is some question about the effectiveness of that effort overall, but it has been a serious theme at FDA under Commissioner Hamburg.

Last week, Commissioner Hamburg unveiled FDA’s new initiatives to spur biomedical innovation and improve the health of Americans. According to FDA’s press release, this is FDA’s blueprint for addressing “concerns about the sustainability of the medical product development pipeline, which is slowing down despite record investments in research and development.”

Should “money” have a seat at the table among FDA stakeholders?  Companies and individuals seeking “return-on-investment” are significant contributors to making medical progress possible. VCs are the natural allies of an FDA that wants to be a strong, science-based agency and is willing to admit that its process and judgments can always be made better.

FDA needs to carefully consider the critique being offered by the VC community. FDA Matters supports FDA in its willingness to do so.   

Steven

Why is it so hard for investors to pick winners? Why is it so hard for FDA to be flexible?    

Complexity, Uncertainty, Unpredictability: Not Necessarily Bars to FDA Approvals   July 17th, 2011

In most discussions of science and medicine, there is an implicit assumption that the human body is a machine—complex and biological, but still a machine. “The human body as a machine” is a metaphor, not a fact. Once we accept this, FDA Matters believes we can become liberated from unrealistic expectations about medical discovery and FDA’s role as a gatekeeper for new products that benefit patients.  Read the rest of this entry

Can FDA Survive the Next Round of User Fee Legislation?

If FDA is to have sufficient money to operate in fiscal year 2013 (and thereafter), drug and device user fee legislation must pass Congress next Spring. That is the immovable object of the agency’s future. To pass legislation, Congress will need to plow through dozens of amendments touching every aspect of FDA and the industries it regulates. This is the irresistible force of Congress.

What happens when this irresistible force meets this immovable object? Something will need to give. FDA Matters hopes it will not be FDA’s ability to carry out its mission.   

The threat to FDA is created by two constraints imposed on the legislative process to reauthorize drug and medical device user fees.

First, the legislation needs to pass at least 90 days before the existing user fee programs expire on September 30, 2012 (i.e. by June 2012). During the last renewal cycle five years ago, the legislation wasn’t signed into law until September 21. As a result, FDA had to delay hiring new staff and the agency was compromised in its ability to implement the new law during the first year of the cycle.  

This time, there may be greater awareness by Congress of the problems created by delayed passage of the user fee legislation. However, this Congress has (thus far) a poor track record of reaching compromises on even simple matters and has demonstrated serious problems meeting deadlines.

Second, the user fee legislation is likely to be the only FDA-related legislation that “must pass” during this Congress (2011-2012). It provides Members of Congress a “one-time only” opportunity to advance their favorite issue or concern about FDA.

A partial list might include: drug re-importation; the exclusivity provisions of the new biosimilars law; approval of genetically-engineered salmon; regulation of dietary supplements; changes in the way that medical devices are regulated; and the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in consumer products.  In addition, Congress now has some Members who might offer more fundamental amendments, such as revising FDA’s authority to review the efficacy of drug products.

The user fee reauthorization legislation will essentially have two parts. The core bill (“the inner bill”) will include renewals of drug and device user fees and adoption of new fees for generic drugs and other programs. In the best case, disagreements on these programs will be negotiable and compromises found.

Any additional amendments (“the outer bill”) are problematic. There may be some areas of agreement, such as new authority for drug import inspections, incentives for development of antibiotics, and provisions for addressing drug shortages.

However, as mentioned above, the outer bill will face a pent-up demand for resolution of controversial FDA-related issues. The House and Senate committees and leadership are going to have to deal with the onslaught—by allowing votes, negotiating compromises or adopting procedural barriers to prevent consideration of their colleagues’ amendments.

The risk for FDA is twofold. Even if “the inner bill” can be moved without problems, a lot of time will be required to deal with “the outer bill.” The clock will be ticking and June 2012 will arrive quickly. If Congress misses, FDA will be hurt. The longer it takes, the greater the damage.

Second, no one can predict which of the items proposed for “the outer bill” might be adopted. Some may make important and possibly undesirable changes in the agency’s mission and activities.   

Reauthorization of FDA’s user fee programs is essential, but difficulties are unavoidable and extend well beyond the fees themselves. FDA needs to be talking now with its many Congressional friends—not just about the details of the inevitable clash, but how to control the battle so it doesn’t get out of hand.

Steven

“Must-Pass Legislation” Key to FDA’s Future     December 12th, 2010

FDA Matters believes that the 2010 election will profoundly affect the FDA’s mission, priorities, funding, standards and work flow. Eighteen months from now, FDA’s leadership team will probably be the same, but the agency won’t be.

Identifying and understanding the likely changes to FDA requires examining the meaning of “must-pass legislation” and its escalating importance as a quarrelsome Congress turns into a divided Congress. At the moment, there is only one “must-pass” item on Congress’ FDA agenda: the next round of user fee renewals that will come before Congress in the Spring of 2012.  Read the rest of this entry

It’s Time to Change CDER Funding   September 17th, 2009

I did some crunching of FDA budget numbers for my column earlier this week on the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). A by-product of my efforts was an analysis of how the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is funded. We often hear how dependent CDER is on user fees. The actual numbers are startling and deserve to be well-aired. Read the rest of this entry