At the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) public hearing on May 31, 2019 (read more about the hearing), over 100 people presented to a panel of FDA stakeholders and to over 500 attendees. Last week, FDA stated in a post that it recognizes the “significant public interest in these products, for therapeutic purposes and otherwise” but reiterated that “there are many unanswered questions about the science, safety, and quality of many of these products.”
The good news for the industry is that FDA “recognize[s] the need to be clear and open about where things stand, and about the efficient and science-based way in which we are moving forward,” including “being transparent and up-front” as they continue to collect data and information on CBD. FDA is taking an “Agency-wide, integrated, and collaborative approach” to regulating products made from CBD and is exploring potential pathways to market for CBD products. However, FDA still grapples with how to balance the desire for widespread availability of CBD products with the desire to preserve incentives for research and drug development of CBD products.
View the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
With the enactment of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (also known as the 2018 Farm Bill), hemp-derived CBD appeared to be on the table for marketing all across the country. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) press release issued that same day put a hold on the jubilation, stating that FDA considered any and all cannabis-containing or cannabis-derived products as drug products and not food or dietary supplements, regardless of whether the CBD was hemp-derived.
On April 2, 2019, departing FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb issued a statement about FDA’s next steps to advance a regulatory pathway for cannabis-containing and cannabis-derived products. At the same time FDA updated its cannabis-containing products and cannabis-derived products Q&A. It is clear that, at this point, FDA has not changed its position.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
Data integrity means complete, consistent and accurate recording of data. This requires an original or true copy of contemporaneously recorded data that is attributable to a specific individual and is legible and accurate. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers data integrity to be critical throughout the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) to ensure product quality and public safety. In response to an increased number of data integrity violations, which have led to warning letters, import alerts and consent decrees, the FDA published a draft guidance on Data Integrity and Compliance with CGMP on April 14, 2016. After considering comments to the draft guidance, the FDA has now issued its Final Guidance on Data Integrity and Compliance with Drug CGMP on December 12, 2018. The Final Guidance is in a Q&A format and provides detailed instructions to the industry that reflects the FDA’s current thinking on data integrity.
Read the full Duane Morris Alert.
On September 24, 2013, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a “final” rule regarding the Unique Device Identification System to adequately identify devices through distribution and use. The FDA has since issued several guidances updating implementation of the unique device identifier (UDI). On November 5, 2018, the FDA issued its latest UDI policy, “Unique Device Identification: Policy Regarding Compliance Dates for Class I and Unclassified Devices and Certain Devices Requiring Direct Marking,” which supersedes the direct marking deadlines mandated by an earlier guidance.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris website.
The Food and Drug Administration recently issued draft guidance entitled “Consideration of Uncertainty in Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approvals, De Novo Classifications, and Humanitarian Device Exemptions.” Comments to this draft guidance should be provided by December 5, 2018.
FDA provides authorization for marketing a device when its benefits outweigh its risks. Uncertainty surrounding these benefits and risks is a factor that FDA considers when making its determination with respect to premarket approval application (PMA) approvals, de novo classifications, 510(k) clearances, humanitarian device exemption (HDE) approvals and investigational device exemption approvals. As it has in previous guidances, FDA attempts to provide “a flexible, patient-centric, benefit-risk approach” that is “tailored to the type and intended use of the device and the type of decision” required. For example, PMA and de novo requests require a demonstration of reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. However, HDE applications inherently have a greater uncertainty surrounding the benefit-risk profile as Congress provided that these applications need not show a reasonable assurance of effectiveness as the patient population is generally very small.
Visit the Duane Morris LLP website to read the full Alert.
Section 523 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act codifies the 510(k) Third Party Review Program (3P Review Program), which authorizes certain qualified third parties (3P Review Organizations) to conduct the initial review of premarket notification submissions for certain low-to-moderate risk medical devices. The 3P Review Program has been in existence since 1996, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has modified aspects of the 3P Review Program from time to time to comply with changes in the statutory framework. The FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA), which was signed into law on August 18, 2017, amended Section 523. In response, the FDA has now published a draft guidance, titled “510(k) Third Party Review Program Draft Guidance for Industry, Food and Drug Administration Staff, and Third Party Review Organizations,” which modifies the 3P Review Program guidance. Comments and suggestions are due by December 13, 2018. When finalized, this guidance will supersede FDA’s guidance documents from 2001 and 2004.
Read the full Duane Morris Alert.
The 510(k) process provides a review procedure for marketing clearance of devices that are “substantially equivalent” to other approved devices or to a standard recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
On September 6, 2018, the FDA launched an alternate to the Traditional 510(k) for submitting a Premarket Notification (510(k)). The FDA calls the alternative the Quality in 510(k) “Quik” Review Program Pilot. Under the program, the FDA’s goal is “to make a final decision within 60 days.”
Read the full text of this Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published its final Guidance for Industry detailing circumstances that would constitute interference with a drug inspection under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), signed into law on July 9, 2012.
Prior to the passage of the FDASIA, sections 301(e) and 301(f) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) prohibited drug facilities from denying FDA: (1) entry or the opportunity for inspection or; (2) refusing access to or the opportunity to copy specific records. Section 707 of the FDASIA extends this prohibition, through section 501(j) of the FD&C Act, by deeming a drug adulterated if ” … it has been manufactured, processed, packed, or held in any factory, warehouse, or establishment and the owner, operator, or agent of such factory, warehouse, or establishment delays, denies, or limits an inspection, or refuses to permit entry or inspection.” This provision extends to “any factory, warehouse, or establishment in which … drugs … are manufactured, processed, packed, or held, for introduction into interstate commerce or after such introduction, or to enter any vehicle being used to transport or hold such … drugs … in interstate commerce.” FDASIA also adds section 704(a)(4) to the FD&C Act, allowing FDA to “request, in advance of or in lieu of an inspection, within a reasonable timeframe, within reasonable limits, and in a reasonable manner, records or information that FDA may inspect under section 704(a).”
To read the full text of this Alert, please visit the Duane Morris website.
The Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA) were signed into law on July 9, 2012, in an effort “to speed access to safe and effective generic drugs to the public and reduce costs to industry.” In July 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued two draft Guidances for Industry: one relating to Prior Approval Supplements Under GDUFA and one relating to Amendments and Easily Correctable Deficiencies Under GDUFA.
Click here to read the full Alert written by Duane Morris partner Rick Ball and associate Carolyn Alenci.
As discussed in our April 11, 2014 Alert, the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) was enacted “to build an electronic, interoperable system to identify and trace certain prescription drugs as they are distributed within the United States.” Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a draft Guidance for Industry for implementing the DSCSA with respect to identification of suspect products and notification thereof.
Starting January 1, 2015, trading partners and manufacturers are required to “notify FDA and immediate trading partners (that they have reason to believe may have received [or possess] the illegitimate product) not later than 24 hours after making the determination.”
Click here to read the full Alert, written by Duane Morris partner Rick Ball and associate Carolyn Alenci.