In the first week of October, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced 2 new initiatives intended to make drugs more widely available: the first is designed to help developers of complex generics better navigate the approvals process, and the second aims to streamline access to investigational treatments for compassionate use.
In the first week of October, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced 2 new initiatives intended to make drugs more widely available: the first is designed to help developers of complex generics better navigate the approvals process, and the second aims to streamline access to investigational treatments for compassionate use.
On Monday, Gottlieb announced that the FDA has adopted a new set of policies to speed the approval of complex generic drugs, including injectable drugs, that are harder to produce as generics. Because development of complex generics poses additional challenges, innovator drugs face little competition even after losing patent protection. According to Gottlieb, “because brand-name versions of complex drug products are often higher-priced than many other brand name drugs, any steps we can take to encourage the development of generic competitors to complex drugs will have an outsized impact on access, and prices.”
In order to help reduce the number of review cycles necessary to approve these complex generics, the FDA has released new draft guidance, “Formal Meetings Between FDA and ANDA [abbreviated new drug application] Applicants of Complex Products Under GDUFA [Generic Drug User Fee Amendments],” that seeks to improve development timelines through earlier, better meetings between developers and the agency. The document describes the pathway for communication between the FDA and an applicant submitting an ANDA for a complex product, which the FDA defines as one with complex:
The guidance also describes in detail the purpose, scope, and criteria for holding product development, presubmission, and mid-cycle reviews between the applicant and the agency.
The second initiative, announced on Tuesday, aims to expand patient access to investigational treatments for compassionate use. Gottlieb wrote in his blog that the “FDA recognizes that time is critical for these seriously ill patients who do not have alternative therapies, and who cannot take part in a clinical trial of an investigational therapy,” and announced that the agency is revising a policy that had the potential to slow patient access to investigational drugs. Previously, a physician seeking to prescribe such a treatment to a patient under expanded access would require approval from the full Institutional Review Board (IRB) at his or her facility, and infrequent convening of such boards could potentially cause delays. Moving forward, approval from just 1 IRB member, such as a chairperson, will be required.
Gottlieb pointed out, however, that drug makers cannot be compelled to provide investigational drugs, and that some companies are concerned about how adverse events (AEs) that occur in patients who receive investigational drugs could be viewed by the FDA. In attempting to address some of these concerns, the agency updated its guidance document “Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use—Questions and Answers.” In the guidance, the agency states that it is “not aware of instances in which [AE] information from expanded access has prevented FDA from approving a drug,” and said that its reviewers were aware that expanded access occurs outside a controlled trial setting, and that patients receiving expanded access may be experiencing more advanced stages of disease, may have comorbidities, or may be receiving additional therapies. It also clarifies the fact that AEs must be reported only if there is evidence that they were caused by the drug therapy.
Gottlieb also noted that the agency would continue to make simplifications and clarifications to its processes for expanded access in the days ahead.
13 Strategies to Avoid the Nocebo Effect During Biosimilar Switching
December 18th 2024A systematic review identified 13 strategies, including patient and provider education, empathetic communication, and shared decision-making, to mitigate the nocebo effect in biosimilar switching, emphasizing the need for a multifaceted approach to improve patient perceptions and therapeutic outcomes.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
BioRationality: Withdrawal of Proposed Terminal Disclaimer Rule Spells Major Setback for Biosimilars
December 10th 2024The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s withdrawal of its proposed terminal disclaimer rule is seen as a setback for biosimilar developers, as it preserves patent prosecution practices that favor originator companies and increases costs for biosimilar competition, according to Sarfaraz K. Niazi, PhD.
Commercial Payer Coverage of Biosimilars: Market Share, Pricing, and Policy Shifts
December 4th 2024Researchers observe significant shifts in payer preferences for originator vs biosimilar products from 2017 to 2022, revealing growing payer interest in multiple product options, alongside the increasing market share of biosimilars, which contributed to notable reductions in both average sales prices and wholesale acquisition costs.
Perceptions of Biosimilar Switching Among Veterans With IBD
December 2nd 2024Veterans with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) prioritize shared decision-making, transparency, and individualized care in biosimilar switching, favoring delayed switching for severe cases and greater patient control.