The FDA this week finalized a 2016 draft guidance that explains when the agency deems a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program to be necessary for a given drug.
The FDA this week finalized a 2016 draft guidance that explains when the agency deems a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program to be necessary for a given drug.
A REMS program is a risk management plan that can include elements to make sure that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. REMS may also include elements to assure safe use (ETASU) in cases in which drugs that are proven to be effective are associated with a serious risks that requires mitigation in order for product approval or continued marketing. ETASU may include provider training, patient monitoring, mandatory registries, or other strategies.
REMS programs have come under increased scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders, including outgoing FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, who said that the misapplication of these programs, specifically with respect to shared-system REMS programs that are agreed upon between innovator drug makers and biosimilar or generic developers, “can block the timely entry of a generic competitor” despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 specifies that REMS programs must not be used to delay generics.
The new guidance, which is among the deliverables required of the agency under the reauthorization of the prescription drug user fee program, explains that the FDA considers 6 factors in deciding whether to require a REMS program: the seriousness of any known or potential adverse events (AEs) that may be related to the drug and the background incidence of those AEs in the population of likely users of the product, the expected benefit of the drug, the seriousness of the disease that the drug will treat, whether the drug is a new molecular entity, the expected or actual duration of treatment, and the size of the population likely to use the drug. These 6 factors, taken together, inform whether a REMS will be instituted, and no single factor, says the FDA, is determinative.
The FDA’s guidance acknowledges that, particularly with respect to REMS with ETASU, there exists a measure of burden for patients and providers. Therefore, it says, the FDA considers whether REMS can be designed to be compatible with established drug distribution, procurement, and dispensing systems, and considers whether patient access could be restricted by the program. Selection of REMS elements may also be influenced by the extent to which they have been used in clinical trials, and by what is known about those elements and tools.
Other guidance recently issued on the topic of REMS include a January 2019 draft guidance on survey methodologies to assess REMS goals that relate to knowledge; many REMS programs include knowledge-related goals, such as informing patients and providers about the risks associated with a drug. When these goals are part of a REMS, the management plan generally includes a survey to evaluate understanding of the drug’s safe use and risks. The guidance gives industry direction on designing and conducting surveys to assess that knowledge.
Additionally, the FDA published a January 2019 draft guidance on REMS assessment planning and reporting. The document explains how to develop a REMS assessment plan, and how the program’s goals, objectives, and design impact upon the selection of metrics and data sources used to assess whether the program is meeting its goals.
Review Calls for Path to Global Harmonization of Biosimilar Development Regulations
March 17th 2025Global biosimilar regulatory harmonization will be needed to reduce development costs and improve patient access, despite challenges posed by differing national requirements and regulatory frameworks, according to review authors.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
From Amjevita to Zarxio: A Decade of US Biosimilar Approvals
March 6th 2025Since the FDA’s groundbreaking approval of Zarxio in 2015, the US biosimilars market has surged to 67 approvals across 18 originators—though the journey has been anything but smooth, with adoption facing hurdles along the way.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Biosimilar Approvals Streamlined With Advanced Statistics Amidst Differing Regulatory Requirements
February 25th 2025The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandate high similarity between biosimilars and reference products, but their regulatory processes differ, especially with multiple reference products.