Law360 published an article on August 18, 2018, by Morgan Lewis life sciences lawyers that discusses the FDA’s plans to advance biosimilar products. In an effort to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, the Biosimilars Action Plan (BAP) focuses on four key strategies: (1) improving the efficiency of the biosimilar and interchangeable product development and approval process; (2) maximizing scientific and regulatory clarity for the biosimilar product development community; (3) developing effective communications to improve understanding of biosimilars among patients, providers, and payors; and (4) supporting market competition by reducing gaming of FDA requirements or other attempts to unfairly delay market competition to follow-on products. As discussed in the article, the BAP outlines several priority deliverables to achieve each strategy. Time will tell, however, if the BAP is able to achieve its goal of facilitating biosimilar development and promoting biosimilar use.
In an attempt to minimize perceived obstacles to generic drug market entry, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents on May 31, 2018, related to shared system risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS), providing the industry with insight into a previously underdefined area of FDA regulation. A shared REMS is one that encompasses multiple prescription drug products and is implemented jointly by two or more applicants. One of the new draft guidance documents sets forth the circumstances when a shared REMS program is required. The other draft guidance explains how to request a waiver from a shared REMS, signaling FDA’s willingness to grant such waivers.
Unfortunately, FDA did not provide any concrete steps to assist drug manufacturers with the challenging task of working cooperatively with market competitors on these drug safety programs. Nevertheless, the two guidance documents are a must-read for both brand and generic drug applicants.
The Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017 (Federal Right to Try Act), signed into law on May 30, creates a federal framework for patients to access investigational new drugs without enrolling in clinical trials and without FDA expanded access approval. The law, however, leaves a number of unanswered questions that industry, healthcare providers, and patients must currently navigate without the benefit of regulatory guidance. For example, exactly how the Federal Right to Try Act interacts with state right to try legislation and FDA’s existing expanded access program is currently unclear. Implementation of the Federal Right to Try Act will be a developing area that stakeholders should continue to monitor. Moreover, stakeholders considering providing investigational drug access outside of clinical trials will have a number of areas to think about when determining which pathway to use.
As precision medicine gains momentum and in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) become increasingly used in clinical trials, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies must quickly become familiar with the FDA’s investigational device framework. Based on concerns that drug clinical trial sponsors do not appreciate the need to follow device regulations when using “investigational” IVDs in clinical trials, in its draft guidance, FDA provides more structure around the incorporation of IVDs into clinical trials, and sets out its expectations about sponsors’ scope of review of the risk of use of such IVDs. The draft guidance will need to be factored into how pharmaceutical and biotechnology clinical trial sponsors use IVDs in clinical trials and work with device partners.