Tomorrow (1/29): A “Natural” Experiment: Consumer Confusion and Food Claims, a lecture by Efthimios Parasidis

A “Natural” Experiment: Consumer Confusion and Food Claims, a lecture by Efthimios Parasidis

Thursday, January 29, 2015, 12: 00 PM

Wasserstein Hall, Milstein West B                               Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA [Map]

This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be served.

Efthimios Parasidis is Associate Professor at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and holds a joint appointment with the College of Public Health. He is an inaugural member of College of Medicine’s Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities. His scholarship focuses on the regulation of medical products and human subjects research, the interplay between health law and intellectual property, and the application of health information technology to public health policy. He has published in leading law reviews and health policy journals, is co-authoring a casebook, and has a book under contract with Oxford University Press. The Greenwall Foundation awarded Professor Parasidis a Faculty Scholar in Bioethics fellowship for 2014-2017.

The lecture will be followed by an audience question and answer session moderated by Jacob Gersen, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Food Law Lab.

Cosponsored by the Food Law Lab and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School.

Recommended Reading: New Empirical Analysis of False Claims Act Whistleblower Litigation

By Kate Greenwood
[Cross-posted at Health Reform Watch]

Late last year, the Columbia Law Review published David Freeman Engstrom’s Private Enforcement’s Pathways: Lessons from Qui Tam Litigation, the fourth in a series of articles Professor Engstrom has written on the growth and evolution of qui tam litigation. (My colleague Associate Dean Kathleen Boozang wrote about the first three at Jotwell, here.) Private Enforcement’s Pathways, like the articles that precede it, brings a welcome dose of data and empirical analysis to a controversial area of the law, the debate over which has at times generated more heat than light.

Professor Engstrom’s analysis rests on a database he built containing information on the roughly 6,000 unsealed FCA cases that have concluded in a litigated judgments or settlement since 1986. In response to Freedom of Information Act requests, the Department of Justice provided information on the judicial district in which each case was filed, the date that DOJ decided whether or not to join each case, and the outcome of each case (including the amount, if any, that the government recovered and the whistleblower’s share of that recovery). DOJ also provided the date of filing for the 3,000 cases filed since 1986 that remain under seal, as well as for the 6,000 unsealed cases. From PACER, Professor Engstrom retrieved information on the parties, law firms, and individual lawyers involved in each unsealed case. Continue reading

A “Money Blind” for Research into Maternal-Fetal Medication Risk?

By Kate Greenwood
[Cross-posted at Health Reform Watch]

A week ago, the Food and Drug Administration announced the results of a review of the medical literature it conducted in response to “recent reports questioning the safety of prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) pain medicines when used during pregnancy.” The literature, FDA determined, is inconclusive. FDA found that all of the studies had “potential limitations in their designs” and that “sometimes the accumulated studies on a topic contained conflicting results that prevented us from drawing reliable conclusions.” As a result, the FDA chose not to update its current recommendations. The agency emphasized, though, that the use of pain medication should be “carefully considered” by pregnant women and their physicians.

One of the reports that triggered the FDA’s review was no doubt this study, published in JAMA in April 2014, which found an association between prenatal exposure to acetaminophen and a higher risk of developing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The study led to headlines like Acetaminophen Use While Pregnant Leads to ADHD, Study Says and Mom’s Tylenol Use, Dad’s Age Are Latest Suspects on ADHD Front. At the New York Times’ Motherlode, KJ Dell’Antonia wrote: “If there is a pregnant woman out there willing to take Tylenol after reading this research — or just the associated headlines — I’d be surprised.” But there are serious risks associated with other pain medications, too. Tylenol has long been considered a relatively safe option. Even white-knuckling it is not risk free. As the FDA pointed out in its announcement, untreated severe and persistent pain increases the change that a pregnant woman will develop anxiety, depression, and high blood pressure.

Continue reading

Upcoming Event (1/29): A “Natural” Experiment: Consumer Confusion and Food Claims, a lecture by Efthimios Parasidis

A “Natural” Experiment: Consumer Confusion and Food Claims, a lecture by Efthimios Parasidis

Thursday, January 29, 2015, 12: 00 PM

Wasserstein Hall, Milstein West B                               Harvard Law School, 1585 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA [Map]

This event is free and open to the public. Lunch will be served.

Efthimios Parasidis is Associate Professor at The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law and holds a joint appointment with the College of Public Health. He is an inaugural member of College of Medicine’s Center for Bioethics and Medical Humanities. His scholarship focuses on the regulation of medical products and human subjects research, the interplay between health law and intellectual property, and the application of health information technology to public health policy. He has published in leading law reviews and health policy journals, is co-authoring a casebook, and has a book under contract with Oxford University Press. The Greenwall Foundation awarded Professor Parasidis a Faculty Scholar in Bioethics fellowship for 2014-2017.

The lecture will be followed by an audience question and answer session moderated by Jacob Gersen, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Food Law Lab.

Cosponsored by the Food Law Lab and the Harvard Food Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School.

FDA Holds Public Workshop on Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory-Developed Tests (Part II)

The FDA’s public workshop on their draft guidance framework for the regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) continued yesterday, featuring sessions on three additional issues: 1) notification and adverse event reporting, 2) public procedures for classification and prioritization, and 3) quality system regulation.

Many issues that had been raised during Thursday’s sessions reappeared in the context of these new subjects.  Commenters considered whether and when laboratories should be able to submit one (rather than many) LDT notifications and/or registrations, the relationship between clinical use and risk classification, and the need to be sensitive to the diversity of LDTs and their providers in formulating the final guidelines.  Other, more legal aspects were also raised again, including concerns about redundancy between FDA regulations and those already promulgated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, whether the FDA possesses the legal authority to regulate most LDTs, and whether the FDA is required to proceed by notice-and-comment rulemaking rather than acting through the guidance process.  (Litigation is almost certain to arise on these last two topics, about which I’ll have more to say in future posts.)

But I want to briefly highlight one theme that cropped up on both days more frequently than I had anticipated: the role of insurers and insurance reimbursement.  Panelists considered whether insurers or other payers should have a seat at the table when advisory committees are convened to classify and prioritize LDTs for review.  They discussed the effect of FDA approval on insurance coverage, debating whether the proposed regulations would increase or decrease access to FDA-approved LDTs.  But most importantly (at least in my view), they explicitly considered the way in which increased FDA regulation would combine with decreasing insurance reimbursement to decrease incentives for innovation in diagnostic testing.

Continue reading

FDA Holds Public Workshop on Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory-Developed Tests (Part I)

Over the past several months, I’ve been blogging (here, here, and here) about the FDA’s recent forays into regulating laboratory-developed tests (LDTs).  Since the release of the draft guidance framework in October, serious arguments have been made on opposing sides of the issue, and industry groups have made additional moves in opposition to the proposed regulation.  And now, today (and tomorrow), the FDA is holding a public workshop on their draft guidance framework, focusing on a wide range of issues.

Today’s workshop featured sessions on three main issues: 1) labeling considerations, 2) clinical validity and intended use, and 3) categories for continued enforcement discretion.  Many commenters simply presented the unique concerns of their organization and urged the FDA to consider them in finalizing the guidelines, which was helpful when it did seem as if the draft guidance may have insufficiently considered the needs of a particular set of laboratories, such as public health laboratories that focus on testing for infectious diseases like Ebola and chikungunya (about which I’ve also blogged, here and here).

More helpful, though (at least in my view), were the comments of those who sought to provide concrete recommendations for the FDA on the basis of 1) the policy concerns they saw underlying the guidance and 2) the practical effects of implementation that they foresaw.  I’ll illustrate with an example, which hopefully will display the complexity inherent in even the simplest questions that the FDA must answer here.

Continue reading

Caffeine and the Law

By Emily Largent

Generally speaking, law school goes more smoothly when the law student is caffeinated.  Consider that Justice Elena Kagan was known at Harvard Law School as the “coffee dean” for instituting free coffee for students (and, as an aside, expects to be known as the “frozen yogurt justice” for bringing frozen yogurt to the SCOTUS cafeteria).

Last year, the deaths of Logan Stiner and James Wade Sweatt drew attention to another place where caffeine intersects with the law: the regulation (or lack thereof) of powdered caffeine by the FDA.  Both men died after ingesting powdered caffeine.  One teaspoon of powdered pure caffeine is roughly equivalent to 25 cups of coffee.  Manufacturers encourage consumers to take between 1/16 and 1/64 teaspoon (see, e.g., here), though measuring such minute amounts with common kitchen tools may be impossible.  On it’s blog, FDA observes that the people most drawn to powdered pure caffeine are “children, teenagers, and young adults.”  It is not clear how common it is for individuals to overdose on caffeine powder, as the cause of death may be listed as “heart attack” in many cases.

Continue reading

The People of the State of New York v. Actavis: Making a Hard-Switch Procompetitive

Actavis is back in the spotlight regarding its allegedly anticompetitive behavior. Last month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an injunction against Actavis and its subsidiary, Forest Laboratories LLC based on the New York Attorney General’s “product hopping” suit.

The suit concerns Actavis’ attempt to extend monopoly protection for its drug Namenda. Namenda is one of only a few FDA approved drugs to treat Alzheimer’s disease, and the only approved drug in a class of medications that act on the glutamatergic system by blocking NMDA receptors. Namenda is also Actavis’ largest revenue generating drug; it brought in $1.5 billion in sales last year. Unfortunately for Actavis, Namenda’s patent protection is due to expire in 2015. Once the patent protection for Namenda has expired, Actavis should ordinarily expect to see a dramatic reduction in sales revenue, as much as 90% in the first year, as consumers switch to a lower-cost generic version.

Continue reading

How Should the FDA Regulate Fecal Transplantation Safely and Effectively?

Last week’s issue of the New Yorker featured a terrific article about fecal microbiota transplantation, or FMT.  Much of the article focused on OpenBiome, a nonprofit stool bank spun off from MIT that screens donors, processes samples, and ships them to hospitals around the country.  For those who are unfamiliar with FMT, it is a startlingly effective treatment for recurrent C. difficile infection.  C. diff infections have become among the most common hospital-acquired infections in the United States, causing more than 300,000 hospitalizations and 14,000 deaths annually.  And unfortunately, many of these infections are resistant to antibiotics, with resistance rates rising rapidly.  But FMT may provide a way forward: a recent randomized trial (antibiotics versus antibiotics plus FMT) was stopped early, when 94% of patients in the FMT group were cured, as compared to roughly 30% of those in the antibiotics groups.

Coincidentally, I’ve been working with OpenBiome over the past few months on an interesting question that the New Yorker article touched on only briefly: how should the FDA regulate FMT to best ensure its safety and efficacy?  At present, the FDA is proposing to regulate FMT as a biologic drug.  However, many (including OpenBiome’s co-founder, Mark Smith) have argued that it ought to be regulated like human tissue, which from a scientific standpoint it resembles more closely than it does a small molecule drug, given the challenge of characterizing stool’s active ingredients and providing consistency across batches.  OpenBiome’s Policy Director, Carolyn Edelstein, and I are currently working on a paper examining the pluses and minuses of the FDA’s current approach.  I want to briefly summarize a few key points of our paper here, but essentially we argue that classifying FMT as a drug is simultaneously underregulatory and overregulatory.  Our primary goal is to ensure that patients have access to safe, effective treatments – and that means the FDA should be more involved in regulating some aspects of FMT, and less involved in others.

Continue reading

The Right to Try Meets the Reality of Drug Approval

By Joan H. Krause

[Cross-posted at HealthLawProf Blog]

Whether it be a social media campaign to convince a company to provide an experimental anti-viral drug to a young cancer patient suffering from a life-threatening infection or the debate over appropriate treatment for high-profile Ebola cases, access to potentially life-saving but unapproved medications remains a controversial issue. Two recent articles, published on the same day, illustrate the difficulty of trying to balance desperate patients’ willingness to try unproven therapies with the very real concerns faced by manufacturers undergoing the drug approval process. The first was a Kaiser Health News article describing the passage of “Right to Try” laws in five states. The second was a brief note in the Los Angeles Business Journal that shares of CytRx Corporation, a biopharmaceutical R&D company, had fallen 9% after the company announced that the FDA had placed a partial clinical hold on its clinical trials after a patient’s death.

Right to Try laws are designed to give patients who have exhausted all other treatment options the right to access investigational medications, devices, and biological products that have met Phase I safety milestones. Right to Try legislation has been enacted in Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan and Missouri, and voters recently approved it by initiative in Arizona. The laws are based on model legislation drafted by the Goldwater Institute, which issued a detailed report on the issue in February 2014. While prohibiting states from blocking patient access to such medications, however, the model legislation does not require manufacturers to provide the products, nor does it require insurance companies to cover the costs. Continue reading

FDA Updates System for Explaining Risks of Meds in Pregnancy

By Emily Largent

On Wednesday, the FDA published the “Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule” (PLLR), which “requires changes to the content and format for information presented in prescription drug labeling . . . to assist health care providers in assessing benefit versus risk and in subsequent counseling of pregnant women and nursing mothers who need to take medication, thus allowing them to make informed and educated decisions for themselves and their children.”  The FDA also issued draft guidance for industry to assist drug manufacturers in complying with the new labeling and format requirements.

The current system, which was developed in the 1970s, uses letters of the alphabet–A, B, C, D, and X–to denote risk, with X being the most dangerous.  The PLLR removes pregnancy letter categories from all prescription drug and biological product labeling.  The new system breaks the risk into three categories: Pregnancy, Lactation, and Females and Males of Reproductive Potential.  Companies will be required to provide a summary of risks, a discussion of the data supporting that summary, and relevant information to help clinicians make prescribing decisions.  The changes go into effect on June 30, 2015.  Labeling for over-the-counter medications will not change.

The PLLR should help many women, as there are more than 6 million pregnancies in the U.S. each year.  Research suggests that over 90% of women use at least one medicine during pregnancy, and about 70% use at least one prescription medicine.  I think the PLLR is a wonderful step to enhance patient education and decision-making.  It will not, however, address our limited current knowledge of the safety of medication use during pregnancy.  About 98% of medicines approved for use in the United States between 2000 and 2010 had limited data to assess the risk for birth defects, for example.  More research is urgently needed, and it’s unfortunate that the rule stops short of requiring companies to conduct studies if none exist.

The Learned Intermediary Rule and Direct-to-Consumer Advertising

By Zachary Shapiro

In the field of pharmaceutical product-liability litigation, the Learned Intermediary Rule (LIR) is a defense doctrine for failure to warn claims, which has been adopted in 22 states, and applied in 48. The LIR means that if a pharmaceutical manufacturer that gives an adequate warning to a prescribing physician, the company has no corresponding duty to directly warn the patient.

This rule has been justified by the belief that the prescribing physicians is “in a superior position to impart the warning and can provide an independent medical decision as to whether use of the drug is appropriate for treatment of a particular patient.” Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc. 153 S.W.3d 758, 763-764 (Ky. 2004). Furthermore, historically, pharmaceutical manufacturers lacked effective means to communicate directly to patients. Courts did not want to extend liability when pharmaceutical companies were complying with FDA regulations regarding proper warnings to consumers. Finally, there was a belief that any direct warning would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship.  Continue reading

European Responses to the Ebola Crisis, Part I: Initiatives at the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

By Timo Minssen

The current Ebola outbreak already attracted much attention on “Bill of Health” resulting in some excellent blogs on a horrible topic.

While it is evident that the current health crisis requires both immediate responses and more sustainable changes in health care policy, research and regulation, medicines regulators are collaborating internationally to find innovative solutions enhancing evaluation of and access to potential new medicines to fight Ebola outbreaks. In a statement announced by the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) in September 2014, regulators around the world led by the FDA and the EMA have vowed to collaborate in supporting accelerated evaluation of experimental new drugs to treat Ebola virus infections and say they will encourage submission of regulatory dossiers. This clearly backs up the World Health Organization’s (WHO) decision to test experimental Ebola treatments in infected patients in the current outbreak region in West Africa and to speed up the development of vaccines.

In the following I would like to summarize and discuss some of the recent European responses to the current crisis starting with an overview on recent initiatives at the EMA.

Like its US counterpart, the EMA leads a close and consistent dialogue with public and private developers of Ebola products and spends much effort in reviewing available information on the various experimental Ebola treatments currently under development. These experimental drugs range from experimental antivirals or vaccines based on the adenovirus or stomatitis vaccine to experimental therapies based on mono- and polyclonal antibody technologies. One of these unapproved antibody combination drugs – MAPP Biologicals’  ZMapp – has already been used in some care workers affected by Ebola. Other experimental drugs that are currently reviewed by the EMA include Biocryst’s BCX 4430, Fab’entech’s Hyperimmune horse sera, Sarepta’s AVI-7537, Toyama Chemicals and MediVector’s Favipiravir and Tekmira’s TKM-Ebola.

Other companies such as Bavarian Nordic  and the Russian Mikrogen are close to follow.

In addition to monitoring experimental drugs and enhancing global collaboration, the European Medicines Agency has like the FDA initiated several activities in order to support and speed up the development of these drugs towards market approval.  Continue reading

PhRMA Sues HHS (Again) For Trying To Expand 340B Discounts To Orphan Drugs

For all those who have been following the ongoing fight between pharmaceutical companies and HHS over the 340B Program’s coverage of orphan drugs (I know you’re out there), last week PhRMA filed a new complaint challenging HRSA’s interpretive rule on the subject under the APA. For all those who are not (but should be) paying attention to this battle, here’s what’s happening.

The 340B Program allows certain health care organizations (such as disproportionate share hospitals) to purchase drugs for their patients at significant discounts. The Affordable Care Act expanded the number and kind of organizations that can participate in the 340B Program, but it also added an exception stating that most of the covered organizations could not obtain 340B discounts for orphan drugs — or, as the statute puts it, for “a drug designated … for a rare disease or condition.” 42 U.S.C. § 256b(e).

The battle between PhRMA and HHS is over is whether this statutory exclusion applies to orphan drugs or orphan indications. There are many drugs which have received an orphan designation for certain indications but are also FDA-approved and prescribed more generally for non-orphan indications. In such a case, can a 340B facility purchase the drug at a discount if it is being prescribed for a non-orphan indication?  Continue reading

Congressmen Express Concern About Proposed Changes to Generic Drug Labeling Rules

By Bob Bohrer

I have previously posted on pharmaceuticalpolicy.blogspot.com about the FDA’s proposed change to the rules for generic drug labels and an estimate of the liability costs that might be incurred by the generic drug industry as a result of the proposed change.  The Generic Pharmaceutical Manufactuer’s Association lobbying efforts appear to have motivated Congressmen Steve Israel (D-NY) and Timothy Bishop (D-NY) to draft a letter to the FDA requesting changes to the proposed rule.  A copy of the Congressmen’s letter to the FDA can be downloaded through this link.

Upcoming Event: Emerging Issues and New Frontiers in FDA Regulation

lab_colored_beakers_slideEmerging Issues and New Frontiers for FDA Regulation

October 20, 2014 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Alston & Bird, The Atlantic Building, 950 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004-1404

Registration is now open online. A limited number of free seats are available to Harvard affiliates. For more information or to request a seat, please email us at petrie-flom@law.harvard.edu by October 7th.

Please join the Food and Drug Law Institute and the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School for an academic symposium on cutting-edge legal and regulatory issues facing FDA.  Leading academics will present papers on mobile health, stem cells, personalized medicine, and other novel medical product issues, as well as food regulation.  Papers will be available to registered attendees in advance, and will be published in an upcoming issue of the Food and Drug Law Journal.

Continue reading

What’s Next If the FDA Holds the Line on Social Media?

By Kate Greenwood
[Cross-posted at Health Reform Watch]

Earlier this week, the Food and Drug Administration announced that it was reopening the comment periods for the two draft guidances on the use of social media to promote prescription drugs and medical devices that it released in June:  Internet/Social Media Platforms with Character Space Limitations: Presenting Risk and Benefit Information for Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices and Internet/Social Media Platforms: Correcting Independent Third-Party Misinformation About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices. Both guidances have drawn criticism from industry and observers, with the FDA being charged with, in the words of Pharmaguy at the Pharma Marketing Blog, “not being technically savvy enough to understand the nuances of social media and search engine advertising.”

In the draft guidance on social media platforms with character space limitations, such as Twitter and sponsored links on Google and Yahoo, the FDA states that “if a firm chooses to make a product benefit claim, the firm should also incorporate risk information within the same character-space-limited communication.” The draft guidance would allow companies to limit the risks that are presented within a character-and-space-limited communication to those that are the most serious, as long as the communication also includes a direct hyperlink to a destination (for example, a landing page) that is devoted exclusively to a complete discussion of the product’s risks. The FDA emphasizes in the draft guidance that “[i]f an accurate and balanced presentation of both risks and benefits is not possible within the constraints of the platform, then the firm should reconsider using that platform for the intended promotional message (other than for permitted reminder promotion).”  In the first round of comments, PhRMA commented that the amount of information that companies are required to include in a single communication “would make the use of Twitter and comparable platforms impossible in all but the rarest cases.” With regard to sponsored links, PhRMA also noted that the guidance assumes that advertisers have more control than they in fact do over “the appearance – and order of appearance – of information on such platforms.”

It will be interesting to see whether and how the FDA responds to these comments, as well as to any additional comments filed during the period that comments are reopened, which ends on October 29th. If the agency holds the line (as I think it should) and continues to require that companies provide at least some balance between risks and benefits in all advertising and labeling, regardless of platform, companies will no doubt (continue) to look for alternatives.  Continue reading