2012 Mid-Year Report on FDA: Opportunities, Threats and Accomplishments

So much is going on at FDA right now, that it is difficult to pick just one topic for this week’s FDA Matters. Instead, we are going to take a quick tour of some “hot spots” at FDA and how they might affect the agency over the remainder of the year and beyond.

Please read on…there is something for everyone in the topics covered.

The “Lost” FSMA Regulations. At the very end of 2010, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). The law was intended to fundamentally re-set the term under which FDA acts to assure a safe food supply. It focuses on preventing problems, rather than fixing or limiting them afterward. FSMA provides the agency with new authorities and additional resources consistent with FDA’s role of overseeing a global food supply.

The first provisions of FSMA went into effect in January 2012 and additional requirements become effective this month. To guide implementation of these requirements, FDA has produced four draft regulations. None have been published; all are stuck in the review process at OMB.

The mystery of the “lost” FSMA regulations prompted two reporters to call me this past week and ask: is OMB holding back these (and other) regulations until after the election, presumably for political reasons. I couldn’t see an electoral connection, plus the first of the proposed regulations was submitted to OMB in December 2011, a very long time before the election.

The “lost” FSMA draft regulations are worrisome by themselves, but especially with so much else going on at FDA that may require OMB review.  

FDA’s Drug Safety Monitoring Program Hits Target, Will Expand. We don’t read often enough about the successes that come from cooperation and hard-work at FDA. In the 2007 user fee reauthorization legislation, Congress directed FDA to construct a nationwide electronic post-market safety monitoring system that would allow FDA to examine tens of millions of patient records to discover or refute possible safety concerns about FDA-approved products.

In a recent edition of FDA Voice, the FDA’s own blog site, the agency reported that the monitoring system, called “Sentinel,” now has access to the de-identified medical and/or insurance records of about 126 million Americans, collected through 17 data sources (e.g. VA, Kaiser). Sentinel is definitely still a “work in progress” on a number of levels, but it will be of increasing value as medical products become even more complex and even more integral to medical care.  

Funding Ups and Downs. Despite Congressional reauthorization of the prescription drug and medical device user fee programs, the budget authority (BA) (taxpayer-funded) portion of FDA’s budget is still the bulk of the dollars. The Senate has included a small increase in BA funding for FDA for FY 13; the House has proposed a small decrease.

Of compelling concern is the strong potential that FDA (along with all federal discretionary funding programs) will be hit with a 7% to 10% “sequestration”—an across-the-board cut--on January 2, 2013. This would reduce the agency’s budget  by between $175 million and $250 million in FY 13. This is FDA’s "contribution" to saving the federal budget more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years. 

If sequestration occurs, FDA will try to avoid lay-offs by shifting more employees from taxpayer funding to user fees. In that case, increases in user fee income will be backfilling the BA cuts, rather than contributing to real agency growth. Yet, FDA will be obligated to undertake the user fee-driven activities and meet the law’s performance measures as if the new user fee money was paying for additional staff.

User Fee Reauthorization Will Drive, Not Disrupt, the Agency Agenda. Five years ago, the user fee reauthorization (PDUFA 4) didn’t become law until late September, a few days before fiscal year 2008. The combination of immediate deadlines, delays in collecting user fees, and insufficient trained personnel set off a series of problems that took three years to fully overcome.

This time, Congress finished the reauthorization in late June and FDA has been planning the law’s smooth implementation for months. Instead of panic, CDER in particular, seems to be feeling good about the path forward and the many changes called for in PDUFA 5. 

Dr. Janet Woodcock, head of CDER, has listed her priorities as, among other things: timely transition to new user fee requirements (including start-up of new generic drug and biosimilars user fees); dealing with drug shortages, moving forward on data standards and new IT support systems, and advancing regulatory science.

Results are still what matters and there are always critics….but a sense of optimism at CDER is always welcome.

 Steven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven

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

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

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

Biosimilars Update: Keys for the Next Year and Beyond

The biosimilars market in the U.S. will not grow large overnight. However, over the next 4 to 10 years, a lot of companies are going to become players. During this same period, health plans, pharmacy benefit managers, Medicare, and Medicaid are going to start reaping savings by buying less expensive biosimilars. By a decade from now, sales of biosimilars will be creating new winners and losers in the overall biopharmaceutical marketplace.

In light of this, I was recently asked: what should a developer or investor be looking to achieve over the next year in the area of biosimilars? What should they be looking to achieve in the years after that?

Over the next year: Assuming the U.S. biosimilar law survives the upcoming Supreme Court decision (concerning the constitutionality of the President Obama’s health reform program), then the last roadblock to creating a biosimilar marketplace in the U.S. will have been eliminated.

The key, then, becomes: how quickly can FDA complete the multiple steps  necessary to establishing a viable system for evaluating and approving biosimilars. Here are some key indicators to watch in judging the agency’s progress:

• the number of investigational new drug applications (IND's) being issued for biosimilars, which would be a “leading indicator” of slowdown or snags in FDA’s initial intake process;
• publication of draft policy guidances dealing with critical details such as nomenclature, label warnings, unique names, etc. (until these issues are settled, FDA will be reluctant to approve anything);
• revised estimates of how many fees the FDA expects to collect each year under the new biosimilars user fee program (a rough gauge of FDA’s view of its timeframe for approvals).

For those looking to be active in the biosimilars market, the next year provides an opportunity to build and strengthen relationships with payers (especially purchasing groups). Payers are going to be focused on the strength of clinical, animal and laboratory data comparing the biosimilar to the original biologic product. There will be a need for biosimilars to be offered at a discount to the cost of the original, but high-quality biosimilars with a 15%-20% discount will dominate the market over biosimilars of questionable quality with 30% to 40% discounts.

Similarly, it is not too soon for companies developing biosimilars to start working with practicing physicians—to calm their fears that they will be forced to use inferior biosimilar products that will result in treatment failures. While payers, not physicians, will drive this market—payers will avoid products likely to generate criticisms and resistance from physicians.  

Finally, for those interested in the biosimilars market--stay cool over the next year. Biosimilars are a sure bet for the long-term. However, it will (quite legitimately) take FDA some time to create the new complex approval pathway that is required.

Looking beyond one year. Stay cool is still good advice. Some companies are going to slip behind or drop their investments because of corporate pressures for short-term return on investment (ROI). The biosimilars market is a battle for the long-haul and will belong to those who are prepared to stay the course through the several years it will take for FDA to develop policies and implement them consistently.

Another potential restraint on developers’ and investors’ commitments over the next several years is the persistent allegation that the U.S. biosimilars market will be limited unless FDA makes a determination that a biosimilar is interchangeable with the original product. However, FDA has placed a low priority on establishing a pathway for determining that an approved biosimilar is also interchangeable with the original biologic product.   

This “controversy” is a throwback to the implementation of Hatch-Waxman in the 1980’s. At that time, substituting copies for originals was a new concept, quality was low, purchasing was decentralized, and doctors had no incentive to prescribe generics.  Allowing forced substitution of FDA-approved generic drugs because they were “interchangeable” was an important dynamic in the growth of the generic drug industry.

However, none of these same underlying conditions are present at the beginning of the U.S. biosimilars market—substitution is widely accepted, quality biosimilars will be available, purchasing is far more centralized, and physicians will have incentives to prescribe biosimilars. FDA designation of "interchangeability," key to generic drugs, is almost irrelevant to biosimilars.

As a final thought: the rise of generic drugs made it necessary for innovators to work harder to develop new, patent-protected products that were better than drugs available generically. The same dynamic is going to play out over the next 10 years for biologic products. The biosimilars pathway adds further urgency for innovator companies to be refilling their pipelines with products that are better than ones currently available.  
Steven

Spinal Cord Injury—Innovation Measured in Decades, Not Headlines

We are undergoing a supposed “national crisis” in medical innovation.  Congress, FDA, NIH, and industry are involved in multiple initiatives to “cure” this problem. This is particularly visible now because the user fee reauthorization process is underway, but the state of medical innovation is always relevant because of our headline-driven, crisis-oriented culture. 

To FDA Matters, this approach profoundly distorts medical accomplishment. You can’t use “where are we today” to judge the success or failure of a medical research process that is inherently broad, iterative, uneven, filled with false starts and driven by cumulative success more often than miraculous breakthroughs. As a case in point, I offer efforts to achieve spinal cord regeneration.  

In the mid-to-late 1970’s, I worked for an advocacy group that, among other things, represented the interests of medical research institutions. There was one Congressman on the right committee who was friendly to our cause and with whom we should have had a great relationship.

However, he had two key positions with which we could not agree. He was, simultaneously, the leading Congressional advocate for animal rights and perhaps the only Congressional advocate for spinal cord regeneration. We opposed his position on animal rights because we thought it would hinder medical research.

Surprisingly, we were also against his legislation that would stimulate medical research on spinal cord regeneration. We supported groups promoting the fight against cancer or cardiovascular disease because their proposals allowed NIH significant discretion to determine priorities. In contrast, we were against legislation that would require research on narrow and specific topics, such as spinal cord regeneration.

But our objection (and the vehemence of our objection) went well beyond that. The promise of biomedical research was so great, it was wrong to waste research monies on areas that held no promise.

After all, we thought, spinal cord regeneration was the stuff of science fiction. Despite the death and disability from spinal cord injury—an area of genuine unmet need—there was nothing that could be done. People could dream of a future world where medical science could achieve such miracles, but for the foreseeable future it was wasted money and unfairly gave hope to patients to suggest that spinal cord regeneration was possible.

Flash forward 30 plus years and the Congressman looks like a visionary….and the organization I worked for looks like unwitting advocates for the status quo. A rich base of scientific discoveries has improved supportive care, provided mechanisms for limiting the damage from spinal cord injuries and given reasonable hope that spinal cord regeneration is a possibility for humans in the next 10 to 15 years, maybe sooner. 

To gain perspective on this, along with a sense of NIH’s current commitment to this area of research, go to http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/sci/detail_sci.htm and also follow some of the links from that site.

I don’t think we were fools in 1998 because we couldn’t see spinal cord regeneration as a promising research area. Despite the organization’s considerable expertise, we underestimated how far medical research could take us—given enough time, interest, commitment and funding. Also, in retrospect, it is remarkable how willing researchers are to contribute to a process of innovation and discovery for which someone else might eventually gain most of the credit.

Forgive me if I don’t see the crisis of “medical innovation” about which it is so fashionable to complain.

As a result of the user fee reauthorization legislation and other FDA and NIH initiatives, I foresee a more conducive regulatory environment for development and approval of medically-innovative products, particularly orphan drugs. The goal is to allow more flexibility, while maintaining rigor. However, these process enhancements are only valuable if there is a wealth of medical innovation, not a dearth of it.

There is more innovative medical research being done today than at any time in history. But the truly great achievements are usually built on many people’s work undertaken over many decades—and until near the end, they hardly ever rate a headline unless someone is intentionally hyping them. Look beneath the surface and you will find that medical innovation is alive and well and just needs our continued encouragement---via regulatory and funding support.  

Steven

PDUFA Reauthorization: Major Upgrades for Orphan Drugs

Congress is to be congratulated on its progress toward passage of user fee reauthorization legislation. House and Senate-passed versions are being reconciled by staff, with a few fairly tough issues yet to be resolved. There is no apparent barrier to a final piece of legislation later this month or during July.  

One of the big winners in this process has been the rare disease/orphan drug (RD/OD) community. Notwithstanding a few remaining (minor) disputes in the RD/OD space (more on this later), the final legislation will contain the strongest set of improvements for the community since the original 1983 Orphan Drug Act.

The RD/OD community had three overriding objectives during the multi-year process of hearings and negotiations that culminated in the House and Senate-passed legislation:

• FDA flexibility in reviewing orphan drugs
• Resources  and process improvements for development  of biomarkers/pharmacogenomics
• Overhaul of the humanitarian device program

The community achieved all three plus a number of additional items that will also be part of the final package.  

The Commissioner’s Commitment Letter. The user fee agreement is only partially contained in the law—much of the detail is in a commitment letter signed by the Commissioner. As part of this, FDA agreed to the Rare Disease Initiative, which includes:

• increased staffing of the CDER/CBER Rare Disease Programs (RDP) (which provides expertise in orphan drug development to the product review divisions)
• increased FDA efforts to assure that product reviewers, industry, and patients are working together
• broadening  research and programming in the areas of non-traditional clinical trial design, endpoints, and statistical analysis associated with orphan drug development
• enhanced staff training for reviewers with specific regard to approval of drugs for rare diseases
• better integration of RDP staff into review teams

When the PDUFA legislation becomes law, these will be firm commitments that FDA must carry out for Fiscal Years (FY) 2013 (starts October 1, 2012) through FY 17.

Other RD/OD Priorities.  A number of other proposals, critical to the RD/OD community are in both the House and Senate bills:

• establishing procedures for faster review and more flexibility for promising therapies for unmet (orphan) medical needs. This will be accomplished by:
  •  updating and codifying FDA’s existing accelerated approval process, and
  •  adding a new process to speed development of drugs demonstrating strong efficacy in the early stages of clinical development (the Breakthrough Act).
• encouraging greater use of the existing, successful Humanitarian Use Device (HUD) program. The reauthorization legislation expands the scope of HUD (adult and not just children’s devices) and allows companies to make a profit.

• permitting FDA to use a wider range of experts and to use the government-wide standards for assessing conflicts of interest
• re-authorizing and improving the Orphan Drug grant program.

The Remaining Issues. There are three RD/OD issues that differ between the bills.

The first is in the Senate bill and tries to expand and strengthen the patient voice in FDA discussions. FDA is already doing this. However, the agency has a weak understanding of how much risk some rare disease patients might be willing to bear in order to have even a small possibility of benefit. Patients need to be heard in this debate. I hope the House agrees to this provision.

The second provision is in the House bill. It would revise the accelerated approval process to allow its use when there is little or no data on a rare disease with a particularly small population. I think these represent situations where FDA can best judge each situation themselves rather than being prodded into what might well be an unscientific review process. I hope the Senate does not adopt this provision.

Finally, the House has included a pilot program to encourage development of drugs and biologics for rare pediatric diseases. There are some questions about how this will work, so making it a pilot program makes sense. I hope the Senate agrees to this provision.  

Steven

About once a year, I check on progress in bettering the lives of people with rare diseases:

• Orphan Drugs Return to Center Stage (2009) http://www.fdamatters.com/?p=239
• For Twenty-Five Million Zebras: New Hope for Therapies (2010) http://www.fdamatters.com/?p=1046
• Public Incentives and Drug Development: More is Usually Better (2011) http://www.fdamatters.com/?p=1361

A Well-Funded FDA: Only if Congress Stands Behind its Own Words

This week, FDA Matters raises the delicate question: can Congress be counted to act upon its own words supporting the FDA? This is desperately important as Congress makes decisions on FDA’s FY 13 funding and possible sequestration.

 Over the last few weeks, the Senate and the House have passed the FDA user fee reauthorization legislation by large bipartisan majorities with almost no opposition. Both bodies have extolled the importance of the FDA. The urgency of it funding needs have been fully acknowledged. The incredible breadth of support for the agency has been counted and documented. But will Congress provide the funding to back this up?

The single most important determinant of FDA’s success is whether it has the money to carry out its responsibilities. Yet, this is a very tough environment for any agency to receive funding increases.

So, it was particularly encouraging that the FDA’s cause became linked to J-O-B-S during House passage of the user fee legislation. The House Energy and Commerce Committee fact sheet on the legislation begins:

The United States has led the global medical device and biopharmaceutical industries for decades.  This leadership has made the U.S. the medical innovation capital of the world, bringing hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs to our country and life-saving devices and drugs to our nation’s patients.  U.S. medical device-related employment totals over 2 million jobs, and these are good, rewarding jobs as employees in the device industry earn an average of $60,000 per year.  The U.S. biopharmaceutical industry is responsible for over 4 million U.S. jobs. 

The media has noted that the user fee legislation assures FDA of nearly $6.5 billion in industry monies over the next 5 years. This is indeed a lot of money. FDA will need every dollar of it to meet the commitments it has made in writing to use these monies on specific activities and on achieving specific performance benchmarks.  

User fees, then, are basically set for the next five years. However, they only supplement the funding FDA needs to carry out its responsibilities. FDA CANNOT LIVE BY USER FEES ALONE.  

To conduct the bulk of its functions, FDA received a budget authority (BA) appropriation of about $2.5 billion in FY 12. This is taxpayer, not industry, monies. Assuming a very modest 6 % annual increase in costs and responsibilities each year, FDA will need about $150 million more to meet its responsibility in FY 13. Additional 6% increases would be needed annually in succeeding years.

Using the 6% annual growth and projected out to five-years--as has been done for the user fee monies--FDA will need a total of $15 billion in non-user fee, BA appropriations from FY 13 to FY 17.  This is in addition to the industry contribution of $6.5 billion over the same 5-year period.

Prospects for 6% increases, even in the first year (FY 13), do not look good. The Senate is recommending only a 0.5% increase for FY 13 (about +$25 million of the needed 6% increase of $150 million). The House appropriations subcommittee is marking the bill up later this week. There is no reason to be optimistic since the House is operating under a total budget ceiling that is much lower than the Senate.

Even worse, the BA appropriations portion of the FDA budget faces a potential January 2013 sequester (automatic across-the-board reduction in most federal discretionary spending) of about 8% of BA funds ($200 million).

If the sequester occurs, FDA would be provided only $2.3 billion in FY 13, taking the agency below the funding level it had in FY 10. Even if 6% increases were to start in FY 14 after an FY 13 sequester, FDA would receive only $13 billion in BA funding from FY 13-17. That is about a $2 billion gap in BA funding over 5 years, solely as a result of the possible FY 13 sequestration. 

The modest $15 billion, 5-year estimate for BA appropriations (based on 6% annual increases) does not account for the costs of the Food Safety Modernization Act.  Nor does it account for the increased non-user fee responsibilities Congress has incorporated in the user fee reauthorization legislation (e.g. provisions to deal with drug shortages). Further, the FDA’s job becomes larger and more difficult each year (globalization, more complex science) so that the agency budget should increase by more than 6% each year.  

This brings us back to the delicate question we began with: will the Senate and House stand behind their own words about the importance of FDA and its role in job-creation and the economy?  If so, Congress needs to appropriate more money for FDA in FY 13 and each of the succeeding four years and it must exempt FDA from any sequestration.  

Steven

For purposes of disclosure: I am one of the founders and serve as Deputy Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA, www.strengthenfda.org. It is the only multi-stakeholder (consumers, patients, health professionals, industry) that advocates for increased FDA funding. Our strength is in the breadth and number of our member, so I urge you to contact me for more information about belonging. Contact me at sgrossman@strengthenfda.org.

Note that 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.

Biosimilars and the U.S. Supreme Court: FDA Program Could Be Nullified

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (also known as ObamaCare) no later than early July. One of the possible results is nullification of the entire Act, although FDA Matters thinks this is the least likely outcome.

Nonetheless, the U.S. biosimilars law—passed as a separate section of ACA—could be rendered void if the Supreme Court overturns the entire ACA. Where would that leave FDA? What about those companies that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to be part of the emerging U.S. biosimilars marketplace?

Controversy over The Affordable Care Act. The ACA, passed in March 2010, creates a comprehensive national approach to the problems of access and affordability of health care.  While not a pure “national health insurance” program that would be recognizable in most of the world, it is more far-reaching than any prior U.S. health legislation since the creation of Medicare (for the over-65 population) and Medicaid (a federal-state program for the poor) in the mid-1960’s. Numerous cost-containment provisions are also included in the ACA.

The ACA nearly didn’t pass Congress at all….and heated opposition has not lessened since its passage. A number of lawsuits have attacked the constitutionality of the law—with the leading case being led by the attorneys general of about 20 states. The US Supreme Court listened to oral arguments earlier this year and will decide the case before it adjourns in early July.

Biosimilars at Risk.   The Supreme Court may uphold the entire law as constitutional. Or they might decide only specific parts of the law are unconstitutional, none of which relate to biosimilars.  In either scenario, FDA will proceed with its current plans to implement the biosimilars law.

However, the Supreme Court might decide that a constitutional problem with one part of the law (e.g. mandating that individuals buy health insurance) is so far-reaching that the entire law is unconstitutional. In this last situation, FDA might be stripped of its authority to implement the biosimilars program enacted into law as part of ACA.

Little Precedent on What Comes Next. The Supreme Court rarely rules that Congressional actions are unconstitutional. When it does so, the Court usually looks for the narrowest Constitutional grounds possible—trying to preserve as much of the legislation as it can. This makes it most likely that biosimilars will survive the Court’s review. It also means there is little precedent as to what would happen to the biosimilars program if the ACA is invalidated in its entirety.  

One possibility is that FDA has innate authority to create and regulate a category of biosimilar drugs and does not need a legislative grant of authority.  This was discussed when Congress was first considering biosimilars legislation seriously in 2007 and 2008. At the time, FDA wisely deferred on the question, stating that it wanted Congressional guidance (meaning legislation). 

Should the law be overturned, the “innate authority” question might be re-raised, allowing FDA to continue with little or no change in its plan. The agency might even argue that Congress has given the agency guidance—treating the language of the 2010 law as a directive rather than a mandate.*

There is no hint as to whether FDA is thinking along these lines. When I asked FDA, I was told: we are confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

Failing a decision by FDA that it has the innate authority to approve biosimilars, it would fall to Congress to find a way to restore the program by legislation.  According to the trade publication, FDA Week, biosimilars’ leader, Hospira, is gearing up to pursue a legislative re-enactment should the Supreme Court overturn the biosimilars program. The Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and Congress would also want to assure there is a biosimilars pathway.**

The problem: legislative re-enactment might not be so easy. While Congress is generally happy with the current biosimilars law, it was the product of a series of compromises and political maneuvering that left winners and losers. Merely re-adopting current law might prove surprisingly difficult.

Meantime, we all await the Supreme Court’s decision. And it’s safe to say that no one in the bio-pharma community is looking forward to the possibility of a new fight over biosimilars.

Steven

* There is no lack of support in Congress for the biosimilars program. Both the House and Senate versions of the user fee reauthorization legislation contain a new user fee to cover part of FDA’s costs for reviewing applications for biosimilar products approvals.

** For those with subscriptions to FDA Week, the article can be found at: http://insidehealthpolicy.com/FDA-Week/FDA-Week-05/11/2012/hospira-to-pursue-biosimilars-bill-if-scotus-strikes-down-health-care-law/menu-id-721.html

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steven

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

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

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.

Biological Complexity and the Myth of the Low-Hanging Fruit

Two events persuaded FDA Matters to write another column on biological complexity and its implications for medical research, drug discovery, and personalized medicine. First was the release of a remarkable study on gene mutations in cancer tumors. It is a stellar and sobering example of how biological complexity confounds our expectations that rapid advances in science will quickly lead to cures. 

Second was the multiple comments from readers of last week’s columnsuggesting that drug discovery (and biomedical advances generally) are so hard because “the low-hanging fruit has been picked.” This is a persistent and dangerous myth that devalues past breakthroughs and distorts the challenges bio-medicine faces over the next decade. 

This past week’s New England Journal of Medicine contained an original article on cancer tumor heterogeneity. According to Reuters, the study showed:

 “about two-thirds of genetic mutations in samples from primary tumors of kidney cancer patients were different from one another, even if they were taken from the same tumor…Researchers also found even more genetic differentiation in biopsies of secondary tumors. The findings suggest that using samples from a primary tumor as a basis for treatment decisions may not be good enough, researchers said.”

An accompanying NEJM editorial, as well as a Wall Street Journal article and comments,  both pointed to this as a setback for matching treatments to the genetic make-up of a person’s tumors (i.e. personalized medicine). Their comments didn’t surprise me.

Over 2 ½ years ago, I put personalized medicine in perspectiveby comparing it to the long history of biotechnology. I didn't predict the cancer gene mutation discovery. I just pointed out what history tells us: biological complexity is greater than we imagine, making promising areas of discovery appear closer to maturity than they really are. The truth of this was on prominent display in these new research results on cancer tumors.

This provides a near-perfect context to respond to those who thought the answer to last week’s column, “Why is Drug Discovery So Hard (and Expensive)?” is “because the low-hanging fruit has been taken.” They suggested: what remains to be accomplished in human biology and drug discovery is incredibly difficult because all the easy questions have been answered and the easy drugs and biologics have already been developed.*

As near as I can tell, a great many very smart people believe this. And they could not be more wrong. The challenges ahead are, indeed, quite difficult….but so were yesterday’s challenges before we solved them.

The “low-hanging fruit theory” is truly insulting to a generation of bioscientists whose record of accomplishments over the last 50 years was achieved by their hard work and dedication, as well as their brilliance. If anything, they might argue that it is easier now—given the new knowledge and the new tools that researchers have to work with.

Beyond that, the view of the past as low-hanging fruit--“easy and less expensive”--distorts our view of the future…that somehow we face challenges greater than other people have faced before us. We don’t.

Human biology is complex and biomedical research is slow and time-consuming. Most new knowledge raises as many questions as it answers (as is certainly true with the new cancer tumor research). None of this is new.  And it is true no matter where you stand in the continuum of biological knowledge, whether you are Pasteur or one of today’s biotechnology “rock stars”.

I am not pessimistic or discouraged about biomedical discovery or opposed to personalized medicine, just concerned we see them in a realistic light. I conclude that:

·         More biological knowledge is always better than less.

·         Having more knowledge doesn’t tell you whether the next task is easier or harder (and often it is both).

·         Having more knowledge doesn’t tell you whether success is near or far.

These three observations are controlling principles in biomedical research’s quest to lessen the burden of disease and provide all of us with a higher quality of life.

Since this is FDA Matters blog, how does FDA fit in? The agency works closely with companies developing drugs and devices and is one of the final arbiters in whether biological knowledge has, indeed, been turned into benefit for mankind.

The agency needs the tools, the resources and the top scientific minds to stay ahead of the ongoing flood of new biomedical knowledge. It needs to be ready to stimulate, then evaluate, what we hope will be a torrent of new, ground-breaking drugs and devices that will, over time, arrive.

Steven

* Dr. John LaMattina, former President of Pfizer R&D, examines this same question in his recent column in Forbes. We agree that “low-hanging fruit” is a myth, but articulate the reasons differently. His perspective complements my own and I recommend reading it along with this column.

Why is Drug Discovery So Hard (and Expensive)?

Notwithstanding herbal medicines and the re-emergence of leeches as therapy, it is only in the last 70 years that physicians have had proven medical science to support “the healing arts.” Potions and procedures of dubious value have been replaced by powerful medicines that treat infections, heart disease, diabetes and mental illness.

While the benefits are clear, the difficulties and cost of creating new medicines are a source of widespread frustration to patients and industry alike. FDA Matters is impressed that current efforts to speed up drug discovery are gaining momentum.  At the same time, the nature of human biology dictates that the creation of new therapies will never be easy or inexpensive.

Recently, Matthew Herper of Forbes wrote about the “truly staggering cost of inventing new drugs”, a range he put at $4-11 billion per success! The point is that every success is bearing the cost of a staggeringly-large number of expensive failures.

The chart at the end of this column shows that about 10,000 compounds are screened to produce about 250 compounds that are promising enough for pre-clinical and early clinical testing. In turn, this produces five compounds in late stage clinical testing and only one approved drug. As a result, efforts to improve drug discovery have two goals:

• early identification of compounds with the highest  probability of proving safe and effective, and
• the ability to discern and discard promising-looking compound that are, nonetheless, likely to fail at later stages.

The growing consensus behind these goals has pushed collaboration and innovation much faster than would otherwise be expected. Identification and validation of biomarkers, pharmacogenomics, toxicology databases, and new compound screening methodologies are among the many approaches to enhance the discovery process.

NIH has committed to speeding early drug discovery through the just-launched National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences  (NCATS). I admit that I was skeptical when it was first proposed because it looked like NIH wanted to compete with industry. However, NCATS’ is appropriately focused on generating useful early-stage drug discovery tools, data and methodologies that will be made widely available and are complementary and supportive of industry efforts. (The advocacy group, Faster Cures, recently held an informative webinar with NCATS’ leaders. Here are links to the audio and accompanying slides.)

FDA has acknowledged the need to be more attuned to advancing medical innovation as an integral part of the agency’s role in promoting the public health.  This was reflected in FDA’s October, 2011 report, Driving Biomedical Innovation: Initiatives to Improve Products for Patients and by its willingness (during user fee negotiations and other venues) to commit to more early-stage meetings with companies. In addition, FDA has committed resources to creating and validating new tools and methodologies for drug discovery. Most important of all, FDA recognizes the need to act on the critical next stages after drug discovery by creating a more predictable regulatory pathway that minimizes the time that it takes safe and effective new medicines to gain approval.

All these activities taken together may produce dramatic improvements on the front end of drug discovery. This would provide the ability to focus on the “most promising, least likely to fail” compounds and reduce the number of expensive failures. In some cases, companies and regulators might know enough from the initial discovery screening to shorten or narrow pre-clinical and clinical testing.

The new focus and activity on drug discovery is reason to be hopeful....but these efforts will take time to bear fruit. The process of taking a compound “from bench to bedside” must still be measured in years.

Optimism should also be tempered by realizing that the human body is almost always more subtle than we can discern, even with the best predictive tools.  New uncertainties emerge, even as new biological information resolves old uncertainties about diseases and drug development.

No matter how much we know, there will always be clinical trials that fail, sometimes quite miserably, just when everyone is most sure that the solution is logical and success guaranteed. That’s why drug discovery will never be easy or inexpensive.

Steven

The last two links connect readers with earlier columns on biological complexity:  Is the Human Body Just An Exquisitely Intricate Machine? and Scientific Reductionism and the End of Medicine. For those interested, there is a third column on this topic: Personalized Medicine in Perspective.

Development of New Therapeutics is Slow, Expensive and Failure-Prone

http://www.fastercures.org/train/tools/documents/022712_NCATS.pdf  (slide 14) 

 

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 Guidance on Biosimilars: The Two Minute Version

If you are in the business of developing biosimilar products—or thinking about it—then you have to read all three guidance documents published by FDA on February 9, 2012. They provide essential (but not complete) instructions for how to construct and implement a biosimilar development plan.

For everyone else, FDA Matters is providing the short version. Why take an interest? Because over the next 5 to 15 years, biosimilars are going to dramatically transform the marketplacefor biological products, creating new winners and losers. Also, these new rules are going to lead to new, groundbreaking medicines…and not just less expensive versions of old ones.

Nearly two years ago, Congress passed the “Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act” (BPCIA) to create an abbreviated approval pathway for biosimilars, which are highly-similar copies of already marketed, complex, large molecule biological products. This is a distinct from making exact copies (generics) of relatively simple, small molecule drug products, whose abbreviated pathway to market was created in 1984 (under the Hatch-Waxman legislation).

Even without FDA formal guidance, companies have begun the process of entering the biosimilars market in the US. Thus far, FDA has received early-stage meeting requests for 35 proposed biosimilars that would relate to 11 reference products (innovator biologic products that are already on the market). About 60% of those meetings have been held and 9 investigational new drug (IND) applications have been received.

The three FDA guidance documents, described in this FDA Fact Sheet, are:

• Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product

• Quality Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Protein Product

• Biosimilars: Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009

As FDA Matters envisioned when the BPCIA was passed, FDA will handle every biosimilar application on a product-specific basis. Two major concepts embody this approach:

• The agency expects sponsors to take a “step-wise approach,” starting with the structural and functional characterization of the biosimilar and reference molecules, then determine “the residual uncertainty about the biosimilarity of the proposed product and identify next steps to try to address that uncertainty.” The strength of the analytic proof of similarity and the degree of uncertainty will determine the required amount and type of animal and human testing.
• The agency plans to look at the “totality of the evidence” presented by each sponsor.  Every application must include certain elements--structural and functional characterization of the molecule, nonclinical evaluation, human PK and PD data, clinical immunogenicity data, and clinical safety and effectiveness data—but they will be weighed by the overall degree to which they support similarity, rather than by any pre-determined formula.

The law also allows for biosimilars to be deemed “interchangeable” with the reference product. In these guidance documents, FDA has effectively said that sponsors must establish biosimilarity first, and then present additional evidence of interchangeability.

In sum, the guidance documents lay out a daunting, but still feasible pathway for approval of a biosimilar. The first approvals will come slowly over the next 2 or 3 years, and then accelerate after FDA and sponsor companies have more experience.

What about the part where the FDA guidance documents on biosimilars eventually result in new, groundbreaking medicines? The key to approval of a biosimilar is to be able to characterize the structure and function of specific biological molecules and, also, to define the conditions under which the human body is likely to reject a large molecule biologic as a foreign substance (immunogenicity).  

These requirements are forcing companies to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in order to better understand human biology and therapeutic biological products. That knowledge is going to make it possible to find and create wholly new therapies, as well as develop significantly better versions of existing medicines.

We are likely to have biosimilars approved long before this impact hits. However, in about six to ten years, we should see the start of a wave of groundbreaking new medicines that emerge from knowledge that was gained as a by-product of creating biosimilars.   

Steven

For a longer commentary on the new biosimilar guidances, I recommend: First Bio-Similars Guidance Issued by FDA by James Czaban at the Wiley, Rein law firm.

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