On July 10, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced publication of over 200 complete response letters (CRLs) issued in response to applications submitted to FDA for approval of drugs or biologics between 2020 and 2024. The FDA has described this move as a step toward the Agency’s “broader initiatives to modernize and increase transparency.”

CRLs are formal communications sent to applicants when the FDA has completed its review of an application but determined that it cannot approve the application in its current form. Until now, the Agency has only made CRLs available as part of larger approval package files on the Drugs@FDA online database (i.e., after product approval). While the CRLs released this week continue to be limited to approved products—and have been redacted to remove trade secrets and confidential commercial information—the FDA has, for the first time, provided these documents in a central database on openFDA. A few key highlights:

• While many of these CRLs have already been disclosed as part of the “Other Action Letters” section of publicly posted drug approval packages, some have not.
• There are multiple CRLs for supplemental New Drug Applications (sNDAs) that had not yet been disclosed, reflecting the fact that approval packages for sNDAs are not consistently posted in the same manner as original NDA approvals.
• Some of these CRLs were issued for products approved before 2020, suggesting that the CRL database scope may exceed the time frame identified in the FDA’s announcement.
• At least one CRL has been posted for a product approved as recently as June 2025. For this product, no other portions of the approval package (beyond the label and approval letter) have yet been posted on Drugs@FDA.

Notably, the FDA’s announcement references a 2015 analysis conducted by FDA researchers, which found that sponsor disclosures of CRLs did not consistently provide full detail regarding the Agency’s specific concerns. The FDA’s highlighting of this finding, coupled with the Agency’s statement that it plans to publish additional CRLs from its archives, warrants attention from sponsors, especially public company sponsors.

Sponsor disclosures regarding CRLs are always closely scrutinized, and the FDA’s move to (1) centralize and regularly release CRLs, and (2) publish additional CRLs (e.g., those for sNDAs, or very recently approved products) is likely to invite further scrutiny—by investors, analysts, competitors, and patient communities. Sponsors should prepare disclosures around receipt of a CRL with the expectation that the CRL itself will become public upon approval of an application. Even where a product is ultimately approved, third parties may make comparisons between a sponsor’s characterization of a CRL and the later-posted CRL itself.

According to the FDA, publication of CRLs is just one step in the Agency’s broader transparency push. Our team will continue to monitor the frequency and scope of additional releases, as well as any opportunities for interested stakeholders to provide comments or feedback to FDA on its plans.

On April 18, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Marty Makary announced plans to roll-out a new approval pathway for rare disease drugs. Commissioner Makary’s comments build on sentiments expressed across both the patient community and industry that rare disease drug development needs greater regulatory flexibility in order to speed access to treatments for patients with no or limited options. This is an initiative that has also been trumpeted by Janet Woodcock, former Principal Deputy Commissioner and Acting Commissioner of the FDA, in her work since retiring from the FDA. Prior legislative proposals (including the “Promising Pathway Act” proposed in 2024) have attempted to create a time-limited conditional approval pathway in the rare disease space, and Commissioner Makary’s remarks may signal a renewed push for action.

In last week’s interview, Commissioner Makary emphasized the following potential eligibility factors in how he is thinking about a new “conditional” approval pathway: rare conditions affecting only a small number of people, where a randomized clinical trial has not been conducted and is not feasible, but where a “plausible mechanism” physiologically exists. Commissioner Makary also noted that post-approval monitoring of adverse events and other data may be an important tool to support more flexible regulatory decision making about drug approvals.

Whether and when the FDA or Congress will take further steps in outlining a conditional approval pathway, and what form that outline may take (e.g., Agency guidance, expansion of the current accelerated approval authorities, or new legislation), remains unclear at this time. This is an area rare disease researchers and developers should monitor for developments, including any opportunities to provide comments to the FDA on its potential plans.

On January 7, 2025, the FDA issued a draft guidance called Considerations for the Use of Artificial Intelligence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products. The document clarifies how sponsors, manufacturers, and other industry developers should approach artificial intelligence (AI) to support safe, effective development and marketing of AI-based tools.

The guidance discusses the use of AI models in the nonclinical, clinical, post-marketing, and manufacturing phases of the drug product life cycle, where the specific use of the AI model is to produce information or data to support regulatory decision-making as it relates to safety, efficacy, or the quality of the product. It does not cover AI use in drug discovery or operational efficiencies that do not affect patient safety, drug quality, or study reliability.

Read the full alert here.

As discussed in a prior Goodwin Alert, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released Draft Guidance for designating a platform technology for drug development pursuant to § 560k of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The platform technology program was included as part of the PREVENT Pandemics Act “to bring significant efficiencies to the drug development or manufacturing process.” Specifically, a platform technology must have the “potential to be incorporated in, or utilized by, more than one drug without an adverse effect of quality, manufacturing or safety.”

Read the full insight here.

The Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) Program, operated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), conducts on-site inspections and data audits in order to effectively monitor the compliance of all FDA-regulated research.

As a follow up to our July 2023 post, we highlight the most common violations identified in Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, in addition to those observed thus far in FY 2024.  BIMO conducted 1073 inspections in FY 2023.  The majority of these inspections (approximately 79%) were of drug, biologic, or medical device study clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRBs), sponsors, clinical research organizations (CROs), and sponsor-investigators.  Some of the most common inspection outcomes are highlighted in our alert linked below. Our methodology included a search of FDA’s Warning Letter database for FY 2023 and 2024, to date, for letters issued by BIMO and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health to IRBs, CROs, clinical investigators, sponsors, and sponsor-investigators.

Read the full alert here.

In Draft Guidance published this week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Guidance for Industry – Processes and Practices Applicable to Bioresearch Monitoring Inspections, the Agency provides some wisdom on best practices for responding to Form FDA 483s, albeit in the context of its Bioresearch Monitoring (BIMO) program inspections, but very much translatable to any Form FDA 483 response. FDA notes the following best practices:

A response should demonstrate the establishment’s acknowledgment and understanding of FDA’s observations. It should also demonstrate the establishment’s commitment to address the observations, including a commitment from senior leadership.

Responses should be well-organized and structured to:

• • • Address each observation separately
    • Note whether the establishment agree(s) or disagree(s), and why
    • Provide both corrective and preventive actions and timelines for completion
    • Provide both completed and planned actions and related timelines
    • Provide a method of verifying or monitoring the effectiveness of the actions
    • Submit documentation (e.g., training, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), corrective action plans, records, etc.)

Importantly, FDA also states that timely Form FDA 483 responses that include “appropriate corrective and preventive actions could impact FDA’s determination of the need for subsequent Agency action.” FDA encourages responses within 15 business days after the end of an inspection and, helpfully, notes that any responses received within that window “will be considered before further Agency action or decision.” Interested stakeholders may submit comments here on FDA’s Draft Guidance until August 5, 2024.

Please contact Julie Tibbets or any member of our Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance practice with questions on FDA’s Draft Guidance or on responding to Form FDA 483s.

In newly released Draft Guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) entitled, Platform Technology Designation Program for Drug Development, the FDA addresses its new designation program for platform technologies, which is intended to bring efficiencies to drug development, manufacturing, and review processes for applications that incorporate designated platform technologies.

Read the full alert here.

On May 6, 2024, following more than a decade of discourse with interested stakeholders on potential approaches to regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published its final rule setting forth its framework for oversight of LDTs. The final rule and accompanying policy to phase out the agency’s general policy of “enforcement discretion” for LDTs comes roughly six months after FDA published its proposed rule that outlined the agency’s proposed approach to increasing oversight over LDTs. As detailed in our prior analyses of the proposed rule (see here and here), FDA proposed to implement a phaseout policy that would, across five stages and within four years, apply to clinical laboratories offering tests as LDTs the same regulatory requirements applicable to in vitro diagnostics (IVDs).

The proposed rule received more than 6,500 comments, and while FDA did not change its amendments to the regulation or meaningfully modify the phaseout timeline, FDA has significantly modified its phaseout policy to extend full or partial enforcement discretion to additional categories of LDTs, creating a framework whereby the agency intends to take a more targeted enforcement approach, particularly in the near-term, to addressing LDTs.

You can read our more in our Insight, where Steven Tjoe, Matt Wetzel, and Sukrti Thonse highlight the key features of the final rule and five-stage phaseout policy. Be sure to bookmark our dedicated LDT Resource Page to stay informed on the latest news and analyses on LDTs.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a draft guidance, “Master Protocols for Drug and Biological Product Development”, that echoes and builds on principles that the Agency previously set forth in guidance for COVID-19 master protocols (2019), master protocols in oncology (2022) and clinical trials for multiple versions of cellular or gene therapy products (2022). The draft guidance offers numerous (and at times very detailed) recommendations to facilitate the design, efficient analysis of data, and regulatory review of clinical trials conducted under such master protocols.

As a starting point, this draft guidance defines several key terms, including the types of trials that can be conducted under a master protocol:

Master protocols offer sponsors the ability to streamline drug development through shared control groups, study infrastructure and oversight. However, these protocols also involve increased complexities and design challenges that generally require a higher degree of coordination. Here, we highlight some key design and analysis considerations addressed in the draft guidance:

Randomization

Sponsors should consider allocating more subjects to control arms than for each individual drug arm to increase power and reduce the risk of a poorly or highly performing control arm. For a platform trial, a sponsor should create a plan for changes to the randomization ratios that can occur as products enter and exit a platform trial. In umbrella or platform trials comparing different drugs, the sponsor should ensure that the randomization process prevents subjects from being randomized to drugs they are not eligible to receive given each drug’s exclusion criteria.

Informed Consent

Sponsors should cover all treatment arms in their informed consent and obtain consent prior to randomization. In a platform trial where drugs are entering and exiting the study, consent forms should be modified accordingly to reflect the drugs currently under evaluation. FDA also recommends the use of a central IRB to review informed consent forms, the protocol, and other relevant documents for monitoring of a trial conducted under a master protocol.

Blinding

Given the potential for different administration methods for various drugs included in umbrella or platform trials, unique blinding challenges may arise and sponsors should discuss their proposed approach to blinding with FDA early in the planning stage.

Safety Data

Safety data from a master protocol can be considered part of overall safety database but data from other sources may be needed to support approval. The type of master protocol and the drugs being evaluated will impact the approach to safety data collection. FDA also recommends that a data monitoring committee (DMC) or other independent, external entity review accumulating safety and efficacy data to minimize inadvertent dissemination of information that could pose risks to trial integrity.

Regulatory Review Considerations

Each master protocol should be submitted as a new IND, and FDA recommends that the sponsor request a pre-IND meeting to discuss the protocol and other IND submission details.  Given the potentially rapid pace of changes in a master protocol, the draft guidance recommends specific procedures for protocol amendments, including cover letters for each protocol amendment that update on the status of each drug and notifying the RPM at least 48 hours before submitting any protocol amendment that could substantively affect the master protocol.  The IND should also include a well-designed communication plan to facilitate timely and effective communication between multiple stakeholders, including rapid communication of serious safety information and protocol amendments to investigators and FDA.

* * * *

Comments on this draft guidance are due February 22, 2024. Please contact the authors or your Goodwin attorney with any questions or if you would like to submit a comment.

In October 2021, we reported on an uptick in the passage of state drug price transparency legislation. As an update to that report, as of October 2023, approximately 22 states have now passed drug price transparency laws creating new requirements for drug manufacturers.

Each state has its own unique set of requirements, but reporting is often completed via an online portal administered by the state’s implementing agency. Generally, these laws require manufacturers to report pricing and other information related to the cost, development, and sale of drugs to the state or state-affiliated entities. Some states will use this data to produce public reports about the cost of prescription drugs with the goal of creating pricing transparency for drug manufacturers as well as to educate the state legislature and public about the drug pricing process.

Read the full alert here.