As Prescribed

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in the US House of Representatives’ Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee recently voted three bills out of committee that target the pharmaceutical industry practices of so-called “reverse payments,” “product hopping,” and “sham” citizen petitioning. Versions of some of these bills had been under consideration by this subcommittee for years, but had not been voted out of committee until now.

FDA’s Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) issued a new Manual of Policies and Procedures (MAPP) in June explaining the agency’s internal procedures for evaluating color additives and flavors in an oral drug product submitted as part of an investigational new drug application (IND), new drug application (NDA), and Type IV drug master file (DMF).

Last year was a record-breaking one for capital raising in life sciences, and 2021’s first quarter was robust for special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) transactions. Now, after a second-quarter SPAC and initial public offering (IPO) slowdown, the outlook for summer SPACs has rebounded just in time for the Morgan Lewis Global Public Academy program, Going Public Through a SPAC: Current Issues for SPAC Sponsors and Private Companies 2021. Our panelists will discuss some of the most important legal issues for companies considering going public through a SPAC and for SPACs seeking an acquisition target. Topics covered will include the use of private investments in public equity (PIPEs), obtaining shareholder approval for a merger, and the required SEC filings and review process.

In a May 27 Federal Register notice, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the reinstatement of the Unapproved Drugs Initiative, the FDA’s compliance policy governing marketed unapproved drugs. The announcement is an abrupt—but not unexpected—reversal from a previously issued controversial decision by the Trump administration’s HHS to end the Unapproved Drugs Initiative in November 2020. The reinstatement means that companies that market unapproved drugs should reassess their risk under FDA’s preexisting enforcement priorities.

At the Food and Drug Law Institute’s 2021 annual conference, Dr. Peter Marks, the director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, commented on progress that has been made using FDA’s Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy (RMAT) designation. As quoted in the Pink Sheet, Dr. Marks stated that the RMAT designation is a “nice tool to have in our tool belt . . . . It may not be an earth-shattering new tool but it’s a nice tool just the same.”

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued new guidance describing its current recommendations with respect to master protocols for the evaluation of drugs and biologics to treat or prevent COVID-19. While somewhat belated, this guidance may shed light on FDA’s approach to master protocols for other disease states/products.

The Purple Book—a database containing information about all licensed biological productsis set for a revamping that offers more patent transparency regarding reference biologics.

Over the past year and as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, FDA relied on alternative inspectional tools and approaches, including remote interactive evaluations and record requests, as well as a prioritization scheme, to continue its oversight activities.

FDA recently issued its first clinicaltrials.gov notice of noncompliance to a clinical trial sponsor for failure to submit clinical trial results to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) databank. Despite having authority to issues such notices since the 2007 passage of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), FDA has not previously exercised its clinicaltrials.gov enforcement authority.

In an apparent effort to combat prescription drug shortages and price spikes, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced the forthcoming termination of FDA’s Unapproved Drugs Initiative (UDI). This announcement essentially walks back FDA’s enforcement approach regarding “marketed unapproved drugs,” allowing them to continue to be sold consistent with the 2006 FDA policy, and may cause objections from those companies that spent millions of dollars in scientific resources and application user fees to obtain New Drug Application (NDA) approval for these drugs over the last 14 years.