Health Wellness
Nearly 1 In 3 Recent FDA Drug Approvals Followed By Major Safety Actions
The Food and Drug Administration is under pressure from the Trump administration to approve drugs faster, but researchers at the Yale School of Medicine found that nearly a third of those approved from 2001 through 2010 had major safety issues years after they were widely available to patients.
Original link
Trump, Gottlieb, and the Cures Act: What Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Need to Know
USA April 13 2017

I. Executive Summary

The 21st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”),[1] signed into law by former President Obama on December 13, 2016, sets out a bold agenda for the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Among other things, the Cures Act strives to streamline the drug development and approval process and create a more patient-focused regulatory framework—two things on which the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and President Trump’s nominee for FDA Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, all seem to agree. However, several of these changes still require additional regulation, guidance, and other regulatory action in order to be implemented by FDA.

We discuss below some of the key provisions of the Cures Act for pharmaceutical manufacturers and the impact that the Trump administration and an FDA led by Dr. Gottlieb would have on the implementation of the Cures Act.

II. Key Provisions of the Cures Act for Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

a. Clinical Trial Design

The average cost of developing a drug that is granted marketing approval is more than $2.5 billion, and the drug approval process takes, on average, over a decade.[2] Much of this money and time is spent during clinical development. One way that sponsors of clinical trials have advocated to reduce the cost and time is by avoiding the traditional lock-step progression of clinical trials from Phase I to III through creative clinical trial designs. The Cures Act encourages the use of novel clinical trial designs and new sources of data in the drug approval process and also requires FDA to investigate how patient experience data can be utilized in the drug development and approval process:

  • Novel Trial Designs. Section 3021 requires FDA to hold a public meeting to discuss the use of complex adaptive and other novel trial designs in the development, regulatory review, and approval of drugs and biological products. FDA also must publish draft guidance within 18 months of the meeting and finalize the guidance document within a year of the comment period closing. The guidance must address the following: the use of complex adaptive and other novel trial designs, including how such clinical trials proposed or submitted help to satisfy the substantial evidence standard to market new drugs; how to obtain modeling and simulation feedback from FDA; the types of quantitative and qualitative information that should be submitted for review; and any recommended analysis methodologies.
  • Real World Evidence. Section 3022 calls for the evaluation of the use of real world evidence (“RWE”) in support of applications for new indications and to satisfy post-approval study requirements. “Real world evidence” is defined as “data regarding the usage, or the potential benefits or risks, of a drug derived from sources other than randomized clinical trials.” The Cures Act requires FDA to create a draft framework for the use of RWE within two years that addresses the following: acceptable sources of RWE, including ongoing safety surveillance, observational studies, registries, claims, and patient-centered outcomes research activities; gaps in data collection activities; and standards and methodologies for the collection and analysis of RWE. The framework will also describe any other priority areas, remaining challenges, and potential pilot opportunities that the program will address. Additionally, within five years, FDA must publish draft guidance on when RWE may be used and how to collect and analyze such evidence when included within a submission.
  • Patient Experience Data. Similar to RWE, Section 3002 requires FDA to publish within 18 months and finalize within five years draft guidance documents on the collection and use of patient experience data in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Section 3001 also requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to publish a statement regarding any patient experience data that was reviewed as part of a drug approval. “Patient experience data” is defined as data that “are collected by any persons” and “intended to provide information about patients’ experiences with diseases or conditions, including the impact of such disease or condition, or a related therapy on patients’ lives, and patient preferences with respect to the treatment of certain diseases or conditions.” Currently, this type of data does not carry tremendous value when included in an FDA submission. The implementation of these new initiatives may lead to a more patient-centric drug development and approval process.

These and other changes mandated by the Cures Act are likely to result in a regulatory framework for pharmaceutical manufacturers that both provides greater flexibility in how manufacturers create and submit data to support marketing applications and takes into account patient outcomes and preferences.

b. Pathways to Market

The Cures Act created or amended four pathways to market or programs for drugs that treat serious or life-threatening diseases that affect a smaller subset of the population or diseases that have significant public health risks:

  • Targeted Drugs for Rare Diseases. Section 3012 facilitates the development and approval of “genetically targeted drugs and variant protein targeted drugs to address an unmet medical need” for diseases that are “serious or life-threatening,” and enables the use of “scientific tools, or methods, including surrogate endpoints and other biomarkers.” For drugs intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases, this section explicitly promotes the use of previous data from other submissions by the same sponsor (or another sponsor if contractually permitted) related to “a drug that incorporates or utilizes the same or similar genetically targeted technology” or “for a variant protein targeted drug that is the same or incorporates or utilizes the same variant protein targeted drug” that was previously approved.
  • Antimicrobial Resistant Drugs for Limited Populations. Section 3042 creates a program for the approval of certain antibacterial or antifungal drugs engineered to treat limited populations affected by “superbugs.” The program allows an applicable drug to “be approved … notwithstanding a lack of evidence to fully establish a favorable benefit-risk profile in a population that is broader than the intended limited population.” The drug would undergo a “benefit-risk consideration” in which the safety and the efficacy of the drug are assessed for the limited population in a manner that takes “into account the severity, rarity, or prevalence of the infection the drug is intended to treat and the availability or lack of alternative treatment in such limited population.” Any drug approved under the program must adhere to special labeling requirements stating the drug’s intended use for limited populations. The Cures Act specifically states that these limitations should not be construed as affecting a physician’s prescribing authority or the practice of health care.
  • Orphan Drugs. Funding available under the Orphan Drug Act was previously limited to support for clinical trials. The Cures Act, in Section 3015, expands the types of trials and activities that fall under the Orphan Drug Act’s funding provisions by including observational studies and other analyses to enhance the understanding of rare diseases, and the development of drugs that target these diseases. These changes will likely incentivize additional research into novel therapies to benefit individuals suffering from rare diseases.
  • Voucher Program Review. Section 3013 reauthorizes FDA’s voucher program for rare pediatric diseases until September 30, 2020. Additionally, Section 3014 requires the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) to review the impact of FDA voucher programs by studying the drugs that have been approved to receive vouchers, the drugs that have utilized vouchers, and the prices that companies have paid for the transfer of a voucher, among other things. This provision appears to be in response to criticisms of voucher programs that have awarded extended exclusivity for highly profitable drugs or that have allowed voucher awardees to sell vouchers for hundreds of millions of dollars.[3]

c. Expanded Access Programs

Current FDA regulations allow pharmaceutical companies to provide access to investigational medical products outside of a clinical trial for patients who have a serious or chronic disease or condition. While these programs are not required, many pharmaceutical companies have utilized expanded access programs in response to patient requests when patients do not meet inclusion/exclusion criteria for a clinical trial. Section 3032 of the Cures Act requires manufacturers of investigational drugs to make their expanded access program policies publicly available to patients, including providing information on how a manufacturer evaluates and responds to requests for investigational drugs under its expanded access program. Although manufacturers are not required to provide investigational drugs, increasing the transparency of the manufacturers’ expanded access programs will help improve patients’ ability to access novel therapies.

III. The Impact That the Trump Administration and an FDA Led by Dr. Gottlieb Would Have on the Cures Act’s Implementation

a. Dr. Gottlieb’s Views on the Drug Approval Process

Although Dr. Gottlieb is not yet the current FDA Commissioner, his confirmation appears imminent based on his confirmation hearings. By all accounts, Dr. Gottlieb appears to embrace flexible systemic approaches to shorten review timelines and bring more products to market, especially for rare diseases affecting small populations. In 2012, Dr. Gottlieb authored an oft-cited opinion article in National Affairs in which he criticized the culture of FDA, particularly in regard to the agency’s approval process for certain enzyme-replacement therapies in the 1990s.[4] He mainly criticized the fact that FDA did not apply its prior experience approving and regulating enzyme-replacement drugs when new enzyme-replacement drugs were submitted for review. Dr. Gottlieb also criticized what he described as unnecessary requests by FDA for additional data and to add more patients to studies conducted for approval of enzyme-replacement drugs where the population of individuals who could be treated with the drug, if approved, was very small.[5] These criticisms echo the Cures Act’s approaches in creating and amending pathways to market for antimicrobial drug approvals for limited populations and other programs for the treatment of diseases affecting small populations. Dr. Gottlieb’s criticisms also suggest that he may have a favorable view of submitting RWE data from alternative sources, like data from previous trials of similar drugs, to support the submission for approval of a new drug.

With a focus on bringing greater patient access to drugs, Dr. Gottlieb will likely embrace Cures Act initiatives, such as the use of novel clinical trial designs and alternative sources of data, which are meant to reduce drug approval timelines and provide additional data for FDA review. In a recent article in Forbes, Dr. Gottlieb criticized FDA as insisting on “trying to force [complex drugs] down its traditional, misapplied, and dead-end approval routes” because the agency “lacks the scientific and regulatory framework to efficiently approve [generic versions of] complex drugs under its existing rules.”[6] While this article focused on the development of generic versions of branded drugs, it demonstrates a willingness and desire to seek flexibility in clinical trial designs. He also has long advocated a better approach to implementing the Hatch-Waxman Act, which allows generic versions of drugs to become approved by showing equivalence rather than by providing all the information that branded drugs are required to provide within an application.[7]

Historically, Dr. Gottlieb has shown support for expanded access programs, touting their value at speeches given while he was a deputy commissioner at FDA.[8] During his confirmation hearing, Dr. Gottlieb stated that he was “uniquely positioned … because of [his] background” to address the purported abuse of the Orphan Drug Act through systemic changes that would likely involve further acts by Congress. This aligns with the Cures Act’s requirement of a GAO study addressing the voucher program based on criticisms that some manufacturers take advantage of the program.

b. Hurdles to Implementing the Cures Act

The biggest hurdle that Dr. Gottlieb may face in implementing the Cures Act is the Trump administration’s “two for one” executive order (“EO”)[9] . This EO requires any “significant regulatory action” that an agency wants to implement—including, in some instances, guidance documents—to be counterbalanced by the removal of two other regulations. As the majority of the Cures Act’s provisions call for guidance documents to be proposed, the EO could present a significant challenge to the effective implementation of critical pieces of the Cures Act. There are three ways FDA may circumvent this restriction in connection with the Cures Act. First, any regulations promulgated or guidance issued under the Cures Act would be exempt from the “two for one” requirement under Section 2(b) of the EO to the extent that they are “required by law.”[10] Second, FDA could argue that the regulation or guidance is deregulatory and, thus, does not trigger the requirement in accordance with the EO’s implementing guidance from the Office of Management and Budgets.[11] However, in order to qualify as deregulatory, the action must provide cost savings for all affected parties. Third, FDA can consult with its Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Desk Officer regarding significant guidance on a case-by-case basis to determine if the EO applies. However, if this “two for one” EO proves applicable to the Cures Act and Dr. Gottlieb is confirmed, he may face a difficult path trying to implement key provisions of the Cures Act and other initiatives consistent with his policy positions.

Another hurdle will be funding. Whether FDA will have the necessary budget to implement these provisions of the Cures Act is unclear based upon the budget proposals from the White House that limit FDA funding, and the looming reauthorization of the prescription drug user fees. Therefore, despite the bipartisan support behind passing the Cures Act, FDA may still lack the resources to effectively support all of the initiatives required under the Cures Act.

This document has been provided for informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed to constitute legal advice. Please consult your attorneys in connection with any fact-specific situation under federal law and the applicable state or local laws that may impose additional obligations on you and your company. © 2016 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.

Government grant announced to fight opioid crisis in West Virginia
West Virginia Record-20 hours ago
The prevention and treatment of opioid addiction are the aims of the bipartisan bill, knows as the 21st Century Cures Act. In December 2016, ...
Senate votes to install Gottlieb as FDA commissioner
Health Data Management-20 hours ago
“Strong leadership, supported by full Congressional funding, is critical for the FDA to implement provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act and ...
Gottlieb Shake-Up Coming to FDA
https://ryortho.com/ (press release) (subscription)-14 hours ago
AHIMA Calls on Congress to Maintain Health IT Funding in 21st ...
Healthcare Informatics-Apr 21, 2017
Late last year, the 21st Century Cures Act was passed by Congress with overwhelming majorities. However, funding for the legislation is tied to ...
HHS Distributes $458M in 21st Century Cures Opioid Abuse Grants
Health IT Analytics-Apr 21, 2017
The funding stems from the 21st Century Cures Act and will be overseen by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ...
Funding bill will advance Trump agenda, redirecting Obama-era ...
Picayune Item-19 hours ago
This bill adheres to the 2015 “Budget Control Act” and, at $1.1 trillion, ... of the “21st Century CURES Act.” Under the “CURES Act,” NIH can ...
FDA Science Board Weighs Plan for 'Cures' Funds
Regulatory Focus-May 9, 2017
... passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. Last week, FDA released its proposal for how it would spend the funds ahead of Tuesday's meeting, ...
Trump, Gottlieb, and the Cures Act: What Pharmaceutical ...
Lexology (registration)-Apr 13, 2017
The 21st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”),[1] signed into law by former President Obama on December 13, 2016, sets out a bold agenda for the ...
Daily Mail
US SENATOR JOHN BOOZMAN: Mental Health Awareness Month
Harrison Daily (subscription)-May 10, 2017
Late last year, then-President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act into law. This law is an expansive effort to address some of the most ...
Cell therapy for severe angina shows promise, but questions about ...
Healio-7 hours ago
There is a new opportunity with passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, where regenerative therapy has a special category called Regenerative ...
Tom Price, Kellyanne Conway detail Trump's plan to address opioid ...
MLive.com-May 9, 2017
Price gave credit to Congressman Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, for his work on the 21st Century Cures Act, which he said "got the resources ...
Massachusetts gets first $11.7M chunk of federal grant under 21st Century Cures Act to fight opioid epidemic - Boston Business Journal
Last year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren called $1 billion in federal funding for the opioid crisis "a tiny fig leaf of funding" last December in arguing against passage of the 21st Century Cures Act. Today, that "fig leaf" has nevertheless delivered the first $11.7 million to Massachusetts.
Original link
Alexander: 1st Round Of 21st Century Cures Funding Sends Nearly $14 Million To Combat Tennessee's Opioid Abuse Epidemic
Senate health committee Chairman Lamar Alexander on Wednesday released the following statement after Secretary of Health and Human Services Tom Price announced Tennessee will soon receive nearly $14 million in funding to combat opioid abuse - the first of two rounds of funding to be delivered as part of the
Original link
Implications of the 21st Century Cures Act on Antibiotic Drug Development
21st Century Cures Act Measures Aimed at Combating Antimicrobial Resistance Establishing the limited population antimicrobial drug regulatory pathway Encouraging monitoring of antimicrobial resistance and increase stewardship efforts Improving availability of contemporary susceptibility break points The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year at least 2 million Americans develop infections due to drug-resistant pathogens, which result in approximately 23,000 deaths annually.
Original link
Four things Americans should know about Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the new head of the FDA
America, you have a new commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a 44-year-old physician, was confirmed by the Senate this week in a 57-42 vote. Many Democrats expressed concern about Gottlieb's financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Sen.
Original link
About 82,200 results (0.41 seconds) 
Search Results
The 'Care Gap' in the 21st Century Cures Act
Home Health Care News-9 hours ago
The 21st Century Cures Act, signed into law by President Barack Obama, implemented many new regulations that will impact the home health ...
Is the 21st Century Cures Act bad for your health?
Dallas News-May 8, 2017
Nearly five months after President Barack Obama signed it, the 21st Century Cures Act — the sweeping law that seeks to speed up the ...
Senate Confirms Scott Gottlieb as New FDA Commissioner
TIME-May 9, 2017
Gottlieb is expected to move quickly to implement FDA mandates in the recently passed 21st Century Cures Act, which is, among other things, ...
Senate Confirms Scott Gottlieb to Head FDA
Highly Cited-New York Times-May 9, 2017
21st Century Cures Act: Debunking Common Misperceptions
Medical Device and Diagnostics Industry (blog)-May 4, 2017
The 21st Century Cures Act promises to spur scientific innovation and accelerate FDA approval of medical products. But first, the public and the ...
Implications of the 21st Century Cures Act on Antibiotic Drug ...
Contagionlive.com-May 8, 2017
The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), signed into law in December 2016 by President Barack Obama, outlines such a pathway and proposes ...
Taking a ride on the NIH budget rollercoaster
STAT-May 1, 2017
The passage last December of the 21st Century Cures Act had researchers celebrating a several-billion-dollar addition to the NIH budget.
Biosimilars, 21st Century Cures Act, Clinical Trial Regulations ...
Regulatory Focus-May 2, 2017
The following is a summary of feature articles posted over the past weeks with links and a preview of what's to come in May. Feature articles ...
The 21st Century Cures Act: Tackling Mental Health from the Inside ...
Lexology (registration)-Apr 13, 2017
This is the final article in a series covering the behavioral health sections of the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”), which was signed into ...
WBAL Baltimore
Alexander: 1st Round Of 21st Century Cures Funding Sends Nearly ...
The Chattanoogan-Apr 19, 2017
The 21st Century Cures Act that was signed into law last December by President Obama provided $1 billion in grants to states to help fight the ...
State gets first $11.7M chunk of federal grant for opioid epidemic
Boston Business Journal-Apr 25, 2017
State officials announced Tuesday that the state had received grant from the 21stCentury Cures Act to fund responses to the opioid epidemic.
Stay up to date on results for 21 century cures act.