In Draft Guidance published this week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Guidance for Industry – Processes and Practices Applicable to Bioresearch Monitoring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 Interested stakeholders may submit comments here on FDA’s Draft Guidance until August 5, 2024.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contact Julie Tibbets or any member of our Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance practice with questions on FDA’s Draft Guidance or on responding to Form FDA 483s.

In newly released Draft Guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) entitled, Platform Technology Designation Program for Drug Development, the FDA addresses its new designation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.

As the life sciences, medtech, and diagnostic industries continue to expand and grow increasingly complex, so does the legal, regulatory, and compliance landscape. To help companies and investors navigate the many evolving and emerging laws and regulations across pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, diagnostics, and laboratory testing, our Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance team has provided an overview of key developments. We update and publish a quarterly tracker detailing these developments. You can read about the Q2 2024 updates here.

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.

As the life sciences, medtech, and diagnostic industries continue to expand and grow increasingly complex, so does the legal, regulatory, and compliance landscape. To help companies and investors navigate the many evolving and emerging laws and regulations across pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, diagnostics, and laboratory testing, our Life Sciences Regulatory & Compliance team has provided an overview of key developments. We update and publish a quarterly tracker detailing these developments. You can read about the Q1 2024 updates here.

On November 6, 2023, for the first time in 15 years, HHS OIG issued a new reference guide for the health care compliance community – the General Compliance Program Guidance, or GCPG. While the GCPG does not set new legal standards and largely reinforces existing guidance, it is a tremendous tool to help health care and life sciences companies advance their compliance efforts. Indeed, within its 91 pages, the GCPG provides the most comprehensive and user-friendly trove of health care compliance insights, tips, and guidance ever provided by the federal government.

Read the full alert here.

Two recent federal court cases signal new significant developments with respect to the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Specifically: (1) new federal district court litigation challenging a recent HRSA Notice involving 340B Program “child site” registration and eligibility; and (2) a court decision in other litigation that implicates the scope of the 340B “eligible patient” definition. Details regarding these developments are in the client alert.

Read the client alert here.

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.

On October 23, 2023, FDA announced the availability of a revised draft guidance titled “Communications From Firms to Health Care Providers Regarding Scientific Information on Unapproved Uses of Approved/Cleared Medical Products.” The draft guidance supersedes the agency’s 2014 draft guidance, “Distributing Scientific and Medical Publications on Unapproved New Uses,” and it provides more direction for industry on how information regarding unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical products can appropriately be shared with healthcare providers (HCPs).

The draft guidance coins a new acronym, SIUU, for scientific information on unapproved uses of an approved/cleared medical product, and provides recommendations for how to communicate SIUU in a “truthful, non-misleading, factual, and unbiased” manner. FDA explains that HCPs can prescribe medical products for unapproved uses when they determine that an unapproved use is medically appropriate for a given patient, but it is critical that company communications about unapproved uses include all of the information necessary for HCPs to evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, validity, and utility of the information about the unapproved use to make these determinations.

The revised draft guidance is organized in a question and answer format and addresses: (1) what firms should consider when determining whether a source publication is appropriate to be the basis for an SIUU communication; (2) what information should be included as part of an SIUU communication; (3) how SIUU communications should be presented (e.g., the format and accompanying disclosures); and (4) recommendations for specific types of materials (including reprints, clinical reference resources, and firm-generated presentations of scientific information from an accompanying reprint).

For industry stakeholders looking to understand what is new and/or different about these recommendations relative to the 2014 draft guidance, we note that the agency continues to recommend providing disclosures about how the information in these communications compares with the FDA-approved labeling, and that such communications be non-promotional in nature. However, the revised draft guidance provides more insight into what studies or analyses are “scientifically sound” and provide “clinically relevant information,” such that they could be the basis for SIUU communications. Scientifically sound studies or analyses should “meet generally accepted design and other methodological standards for the particular type of study or analysis performed, taking into account established scientific principles and existing scientific knowledge.” Clinically relevant information is information that is pertinent to HCPs when making clinical practice decisions for an individual patient. FDA notes that while randomized, double-blind, controlled trials are the most likely to provide scientifically sound and clinically relevant information, other types of well-designed and well-conducted trials, or even analyses of real-world data, could also generate this type of information. In contrast, studies that lack detail to permit scientific evaluation, communications that “distort” studies, and data from early stages of development that are not borne out in later studies are examples of information that may not be appropriate as the basis of SIUU communications.

Another clear theme in the revised draft guidance is the need to separate SIUU communications from promotional communications. FDA explains that the use of “persuasive marketing techniques” (such as celebrity endorsers, premium offers, and gifts) suggests a firm may be trying to convince an HCP to prescribe or use a product for an unapproved use, not merely presenting scientific content to help an HCP make an informed clinical practice decision, and thus would fall outside the scope of the enforcement policy outlined in the revised draft guidance. FDA also recommends several ways to separate SIUU communications from promotional communications, including using “dedicated vehicles, channels, and venues” for SIUU communications that are separate from those used for promotional communications—such as distinct web pages that do not directly link to each other, sharing the types of information via separate email messages, and dividing booth space to separate the presentation of these types of information at medical and scientific meetings. In addition, FDA advises that if a media platform has features (such as character limits) that do not allow a company to provide the disclosures recommended for an SIUU communication, then that platform should not be used to disseminate SIUU, but could be used to direct HCPs to an SIUU communication (e.g., via a link to a website).

Companies may already be following many of the recommendations in the revised draft guidance, but the updates and clarifications throughout reflect FDA’s continued emphasis on ways to appropriately share accurate, scientifically sound data with HCPs to inform clinical practice decisions. In line with the agency’s 2018 guidances on communicating information that is consistent with product labeling and communicating with payors, formulary committees and similar entities, this draft guidance acknowledges the evolving realities of medical product communications and provides guardrails for companies to assess whether and how to communicate product information that is not included in its FDA-required labeling, while at the same time reminding the industry that there are “multiple important government interests” served by statutory requirements for premarket review and the prohibition on introducing a misbranded product into interstate commerce.

Comments on the draft guidance are due December 24, 2023, and can be submitted to the docket available here. Please contact any of the authors or your Goodwin attorney if you have any questions about this revised draft guidance.