FSMA: The Future Is Now – Stakeholder Perspectives

On April 23-24, 2015, FDA hosted the “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Public Meeting: Focus on Implementation Strategy for Prevention-Oriented Food Safety Standards.” The national public meeting in Washington, D.C., continued on the second day with a panel discussion on stakeholder perspectives.

Participants: Sandra Eskin, J.D., Director, Food Safety, The Pew Charitable Trust; Leon Bruner, D.V.M., Ph.D., Executive Vice President for Scientific and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Science Officer, Grocery Manufacturers Association; Marsha Echols, J.D., Legal Advisor, Specialty Food Association; Richard Sellers, Senior Vice President of Legislative and Regulatory Affairs, American Feed Industry Association; David Gombas, Ph.D., Senior Vice President of Food Safety and Technology, United Fresh Produce Association; Sophia Kruszewski, J.D., Policy Specialist, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; Stephanie Barnes, J.D., Regulatory Counsel, Food Marketing Institute. Moderator: Roberta Wagner, Director for Regulatory Affairs, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA.

Congratulations to FDA’s Dr. Richard Pazdur, recipient of the AACR’s prestigious Distinguished Public Service Award

By: Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

In the past five years, FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has approved more than 40 novel cancer treatments, offering hope to many patients who previously had few or no treatment options. Among these products are new and cutting-edge targeted therapies—sometimes called “precision medicines”—tailored to treat patients based on their individual characteristics.

Acting FDA Commissioner, Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

Acting FDA Commissioner, Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

This achievement is a tribute to the dedicated CDER scientists and clinicians who support innovative development of cancer drugs, and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of new products for FDA approval. They are led by the dynamic and creative thinker, Dr. Richard Pazdur, a 16-year FDA veteran whose name has become synonymous with excellence in cancer drug research, development, evaluation and approval.

It is with great pride and admiration that I share with you today that the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) has awarded its 2015 Distinguished Public Service Award to Dr. Pazdur. AACR selected Dr. Pazdur for this award based on his “extraordinary, steadfast leadership in scientific and regulatory affairs” and his “unwavering commitment to ensuring the development of safe and effective treatments for cancer patients.” The Association also noted that Dr. Pazdur’s “important work has been and continues to be nothing short of spectacular, and it is saving lives every day from this most feared disease that affects so many.”

Dr. Richard Pazdur (left) receives the 2015 Distinguished Public Service Award from AACR President Dr. Arteaga

Dr. Richard Pazdur (left) receives the 2015 Distinguished Public Service Award from AACR President Dr. Arteaga. Photo by © AACR/Todd Buchanan.

As director of the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP) at FDA, Dr. Pazdur leads a staff of more than 150 oncologists, toxicologists, and other specialists dedicated to approving safe and effective drugs for cancer and blood-related conditions. Dr. Pazdur and his staff are committed to facilitating rapid development, review, and action on promising new treatments to combat these diseases and improve patient outcomes. Dr. Pazdur and the OHOP staff are also committed to outreach with the oncology community. In 2005, Dr. Pazdur established the Oncology Program, which coordinates oncology activities within FDA as well as with external stakeholders providing OHOP with a unique infrastructure within CDER to interact with professional societies and patient advocacy groups.

We are grateful for Dr. Pazdur’s sustained contributions and look forward to many more years of his leadership, and his adept and proficient manner in helping patients in need.

Stephen Ostroff, M.D., is Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA’s Keynote Address to the Annual Conference of the Food and Drug Law Institute

By Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

Today marks the start of my third week as Acting Commissioner of FDA and I “celebrated” by giving a keynote address to attendees at the annual conference of the Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI). Few places offer a more appropriate stage for a newly designated leader of FDA. As our names suggest, our organizations have a lot in common.

Stephen OstroffFor decades, the FDA and FDLI have worked together to educate and inform the broad “food and drug” community about the latest developments in our field and FDA’s critical and complex role in promoting and protecting the public health.

It’s been an exciting, busy, and rewarding first three weeks since moving into my new office from the position of Chief Scientist. The FDLI annual meeting offered me the opportunity to highlight a number of FDA’s accomplishments over the last year. The credit for these achievements in no small measure goes to the immensely talented employees at FDA who are committed to assuring safe and nutritious foods, providing effective and high quality medical products, and reducing harm from tobacco products. Credit for these achievements also reflects the extraordinary leadership of my predecessor, Dr. Peggy Hamburg, over the last 6 years.

So today, I’m pleased and honored to present to this audience some of FDA’s accomplishments and challenges, and also to extend my sincere appreciation to FDA’s dedicated work force, who make my new job much easier. But much more importantly, our work force makes the lives of so many Americans safer and healthier. It is with great pride that I look forward to continuing to work with all of you in support of this noble goal.

Stephen Ostroff, M.D., is Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA Celebrates 30 Years of Advancing Health Equity

By: Jonca Bull, M.D.

April is Minority Health Month! I am proud to say that FDA’s Office of Minority Health (OMH), in collaboration with  the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Minority Health, is celebrating this year’s theme: “30 Years of Advancing Health Equity, The Heckler Report: A Force for Ending Health Disparities in America.” For us at FDA, this year also marks the 5th anniversary of OMH, which serves as the principal advisor to the Commissioner on minority health and health disparities.

Jonca BullThe Heckler Report was a major, ground breaking document that transformed HHS’s views and actions on minority health. For the first time in history, representatives from each agency convened to talk about minority health and, more importantly, put forth recommendations to achieve health equity. Findings illustrated huge disparities between African Americans and other minorities compared to the population at large for key health indicators, such as life expectancy and infant mortality. Key recommendations relevant to FDA’s mission centered around health information and education, cooperative efforts (inside and outside of the government), health professions development, data development, and developing a research agenda.

Let’s stroll down memory lane and recap FDA’s activities that resulted from the Heckler report.

Health Information and Education 

FDA has developed numerous outreach activities to improve consumer education and access to health information by utilizing the best cultural and linguistic practices to reach diverse minority populations. Hosting symposiums and webinars, participating in conferences, exhibiting in health fairs, and creating consumer educational materials are just some of the activities FDA has carried out to raise awareness and educate the public. Most recently, OMH has created a social media presence on Twitter and Pinterest, and maintains an active listserve with a quarterly newsletter. One of our most successful outreach campaigns has been the “Heart Health Toolkit” for American Heart Month, which reached over 6,000 people in February.

Our most recent consumer outreach occurred on March 25th via a webinar on how the public can respond to requests for comments on regulatory proposals and public health issues by using FDA dockets.

Cooperative Efforts/Health Professions Development

OMH embraces the notion that protecting the public’s health cannot be done in isolation. We have focused on four areas to improve stakeholder relations:

  • Work with Industry to increase diversity in clinical trials;
  • Work with minority serving institutions and organizations to implement strategies and programs to improve regulatory science (specific to minorities);
  • Provide platforms for stakeholders to become informed and involved about our work; and,
  • Host and promote mentoring programs to encourage minorities to stay in scientific and academic careers.

Data Development and Research Agenda

We have a robust research agenda that focuses on advancing regulatory science related to eliminating health disparities. The agenda consists of various intramural and extramural grant programs, giving preference to minority-serving institutions. FDA also promotes and funds research that aims to increase the quantity, and improve the quality, of data on minorities, and to make these efforts transparent to the public.

In short: FDA has been and will continue to be committed to narrowing the health disparities gap. OMH will continue our legacy of creating culturally and linguistically tailored tools, materials, and resources for minority communities to increase their awareness and understanding of FDA’s mission and of the products that FDA regulates, increase their participation in clinical trials, and increase diversity in the workforce. This ensures better representation in the workforce, and most importantly: better health for all minorities!

More information about specific programs can be found on our website.

The Heckler Report can be found at: http://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-8602912-mvset.

Jonca Bull, M.D., is Director of FDA’s Office of Minority Health

Reducing the number of unapproved drugs while working to prevent drug shortages: a job that calls for strong collaboration in FDA

By: CAPT Val Jensen and Cynthia Schnedar

Val Jensen

CAPT Valerie Jensen R.Ph., Associate Director of the Drug Shortage Staff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA

Several of FDA’s recent drug approvals highlight how different parts of FDA work together to achieve the same goal: ensuring an adequate supply of FDA-approved drugs for U.S. consumers. Our drug shortages team partners with many groups within the agency to achieve this goal. One of these partnerships is with our unapproved prescription drugs staff.

Patients and doctors alike may be unaware that some prescription drugs are not FDA-approved, because versions of some of these products have been marketed for decades, often with little data to demonstrate whether these drugs are safe and effective. At FDA, one task of our unapproved prescription drugs team is to identify these products, and encourage companies to remove unapproved versions from the market, and begin the application process to obtain FDA approval.

A growing number of manufacturers have successfully obtained approval for formerly unapproved products. For example:

  • Bloxiverz (neostigmine methylsulfate injection), marketed by Éclat Pharmaceuticals and approved to reverse the effects of certain neuromuscular blocking agents after surgery, was approved in 2013, and,
  • Vasostrict (vasopressin), marketed by Par Sterile and approved to increase blood pressure in adults in vasodilatory shock whose blood pressure remains low despite administration of fluids and other efforts to raise it, was approved in 2014.
Cynthia Schnedar

Cynthia Schnedar, J.D., Director of the Office of Compliance at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Such approvals highlight the strength of collaborations between FDA’s shortages staff, our unapproved drugs team, and the Office of New Drugs. These approvals are crucial for FDA: once a drug is approved, we know what ingredients are in the drug, how it is made, and that it has been shown to be safe and effective for its labeled use. Approval of formerly unapproved products also helps alleviate FDA’s concerns about a potential market disruption or shortage of these drugs, because the manufacturers of approved drugs have invested in a manufacturing process that helps to ensure the drug is produced the same way every single time, lowering the risk for shortage.

However, prescribers and their patients may sometimes think there is a shortage of product because once the manufacturer can produce an approved drug in sufficient quantities to meet market demand, the unapproved versions transition out of the market. To help allay such concerns, FDA’s unapproved drugs team works closely with the drug shortages staff to share information about the availability of the newly-approved product from the manufacturer, information that is then conveyed to patients and providers. This strong relationship between the different parts of the Agency facilitates adequate supply of safe and effective, FDA-approved drugs.

FDA is aware of another access-related issue as well when unapproved drugs are approved. If a single manufacturer is the sole maker of a newly-approved product, the price of the drug may be higher than what patients and prescribers paid for the unapproved drug. FDA welcomes manufacturers’ sensitivity to pricing of these newly approved versions. However, FDA is charged by Congress to ensure that drugs are safe, effective and properly labeled and does not factor costs into its drug approvals or safety related decisions. While approved drugs may cost more, patients are assured a safe and effective product.

FDA encourages companies to apply for approval of generic versions of newly-approved drugs since this would be anticipated to foster competition and promote price reductions. For example, neostigmine, a formerly unapproved drug, now has two approved manufacturers. FDA expects to receive more applications for approvals in the future.

Making safe and effective medicines available to patients is our number one goal. While working to bring FDA-approved drugs to market frequently involves exceptional challenges and complications, we believe that in the long run, our efforts enhance public health for all Americans.

CAPT Valerie Jensen R.Ph., is Associate Director of the Drug Shortage Staff, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA

Cynthia Schnedar, J.D., is Director of the Office of Compliance, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA

Providing Timely Patient Access to High-Quality, Safe and Effective Medical Devices

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D.

We know that patients with life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions lack treatment and diagnostic options. For these patients, earlier access to promising new devices is critically important. At the same time, delayed access may mean the difference between life and death, or may result in irreversible disability.

Jeffrey ShurenIn weighing the benefits and risks of new technologies for these patients, we understand the need to place greater weight on the benefit of earlier access, and to also account for the risks of delayed access. That’s why  we’ve developed the Expedited Access Program (EAP): to speed qualifying devices to patients with life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions without compromising FDA’s high standards for safety and effectiveness.

Under this voluntary program, sponsors of devices for life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions that meet an unmet need can request an EAP designation. Also under this program, CDRH staff- including senior management – work collaboratively with developers of such devices earlier and more often. These efforts include the creation of a Data Development Plan that provides predictability and leverages postmarket data collection. The Data Development Plan will shift premarket data collection to the postmarket setting, to the extent appropriate, taking into account the public health benefit of these devices, while still meeting the U.S. approval standard of reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Starting April 15th, this program will be up and running and we will begin to accept requests for EAP designation.

The premarket data must be adequate to support FDA’s high standard for premarket review but can include data based on an intermediate endpoint or a surrogate endpoint reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit.

Another important feature of the EAP is how FDA decides that the benefits of a novel device for patients with life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions outweigh its risks. Under the EAP, FDA may accept a greater degree of uncertainty if it is sufficiently balanced by other factors, including the probable benefits to having earlier access to the device.

If, after careful analysis, FDA determines that some data can be collected after the device is on the market, then patients in need will benefit sooner. A few of the factors that can enter into this analysis include a low probability of serious harm, a high likelihood that postmarket surveillance can quickly identify instances of serious patient harm and a high likelihood that postmarket data collection will be completed in a timely manner.

We consider this balancing of premarket and postmarket data collection to be so important that we made it one of our three 2014-2015 strategic priorities, along with strengthening the clinical trial enterprise and providing excellent customer service.

Today, we’re taking steps to implement that priority. In addition to issuing a guidance document outlining our EAP program for devices to treat or diagnose life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions, we’re issuing a guidance on balancing premarket and postmarket data collection. It describes the circumstances under which postmarket data collection is appropriate for PMAs, whether or not they meet the criteria for the EAP, and provides many useful examples.

Once EAP products come to us for review, they will qualify for priority review. This feature, combined with the other elements of the EAP program, will reduce the time it takes to develop important new medical devices for patients with unmet medical needs and it will do so without ever lowering our standards.

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., is Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

In a country full of differences, common ground

By: Michael Taylor, Howard Sklamberg and Camille Brewer

We are headed to a meeting in Delhi. Through our taxi windows a vibrant India swirls around us: green and yellow motorized rickshaws and Vespas dart through the crowded city streets, zipping around buses, trucks and the occasional courageous pedestrian. It looks and feels like no city in the United States.

Michael Taylor

Michael R. Taylor, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine

We are struck by how different it all seems, with many manifestations of traditional Indian lifestyle and culture — saris and turbans worn by many women and men, cattle and monkeys in the streets, and street food of all kinds — mixing with advanced urban infrastructure, intense commercial activity, and Western brand names all around.

We’ve come to this amazing country to discuss with government officials and industry leaders some important changes to our food safety system that will  affect food exports from here to the United States. But we are also here to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the government of India, “intended to develop opportunities for cooperative engagement in regulatory, scientific, and technical matters and public health protection that are related to…food products.” It admittedly sounds like a bit of legalese, but what it means is that it’s critical that our two nations work together on food safety issues.

Howard Sklamberg

Howard Sklamberg, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy

Why? Well, India is the 7th largest supplier of food to the United States. The great amount of Indian food products that wind up on the dinner tables of Americans every night — including shrimp, spices, and rice — reflects the increasing globalization of our own country’s food supply, 15 percent of which consists of foreign products. Many of these goods come from any one of India’s 29 states, produced by thousands of different companies.

The signing of this MOU with the Export Inspection Council of India is the next step in enhancing our regulatory cooperation with this nation of 1.2 billion people. Last year, while here, FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., signed a similar arrangement between FDA and the Indian Department of Health and Family Welfare, a Statement of Intent focused on medical and cosmetic product safety.

And while these documents serve as important, even historic, markers of our nations’ shared commitment to quality drug and food products, we’ve also discovered we have a lot in common with those we’ve met on our journey — which is taking us from the stalls of nut and spice vendors in Old Delhi to a shrimp processing facility in a remote part of Andhra Pradesh.

Camille Brewer

Camille Brewer, M.S., R.D., Director of International Affairs at FDA’s Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine.

We had a lot of information to share on this trip. The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed into law by President Obama in 2011, mandates a food safety system that is preventive rather than reactive, and in which foreign food producers are held to the same safety standards as our domestic farmers and food companies. Under FSMA’s new import safety system, we will continue targeted border checks, but the new system makes importers in the U.S. accountable to FDA for verifying that their foreign suppliers are using methods to prevent food safety problems that provide the same level of public health protection as those used by their U.S. counterparts.

Under FSMA, this new accountability for importers will be backed up by more overseas inspections by FDA, and, crucial for the purposes of this trip, more active partnership with our foreign government counterparts. We need it to strengthen assurances of food safety and capitalize efficiently on the efforts of all participants in what is becoming a truly global food safety system. FSMA is a game changer for food safety and for our food safety partners around the world, and we wondered how our talk about its implementation would be received.

But the Indians are no strangers to sweeping change to improve food safety.

India Shrimp Plant

FDA’s Howard Sklamberg (left) and Michael Taylor (center) tour Waterbase Ltd, a shrimp processing plant and farm in Nellore, India.

Our counterparts, known as the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), are also undergoing a significant regulatory overhaul, known as the Foods Safety and Standards Act. Passed in 2006, it was the law that actually created FSSAI. At its core, the Act seeks to ensure that India’s food industry is adhering to international, science-based standards for food safety. Not unlike FSMA, this law poses many challenges in terms of how it can be successfully implemented, with both laws mandating comprehensive change, including marked increases in authority that require new resources to implement.

India MOU signing

FDA’s Howard Sklamberg (left) and Michael Taylor (center) sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the government of India

Although we don’t know most of the 22 official languages spoken here, we nonetheless realized after meeting with FSSAI that we “speak the same language” in terms of our food safety challenges and solutions. The FSSAI leaders conveyed real concern about protecting the Indian consumers they serve and, like us, they understand that in an increasingly global world, you can’t “go it alone” when it comes to food safety. Commissioner Hamburg, speaking of the global drug supply and how to make it safer, once described the need for a “coalition of regulators.” That same need exists for the world’s food supply.

We left our meeting with FSSAI assured that we are on the same page with our Indian colleagues about our food safety goals, as well as the amount of work — and collaboration — needed to achieve them.

The sounds and sights of Delhi and D.C. are certainly different. But with our MOU signed, we look forward to building our partnership with India, recognizing that sometimes the most fruitful relationships result when people with diverse perspectives come together to find common ground.

Michael R. Taylor is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine

Howard Sklamberg is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy

Camille Brewer, M.S., R.D., is Director of International Affairs at FDA’s Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine.

From New Jersey to New Delhi, a global focus on quality

By: Howard Sklamberg and Cynthia Schnedar

As we walked through the bustling, ancient city streets of Old Delhi last week, teeming with tourists and shop keepers selling spices and saris, we were struck by how resplendent this country is, and just how much it offers the world.

Howard Sklamberg

Howard Sklamberg, J.D., FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy

This is certainly true about prescription drugs. India is a significant exporter of generic drugs to the United States. The American people benefit tremendously from generic drugs, as more and more generic medications reduce costs for patients, and the American healthcare system. The rise of India’s pharmaceutical star is one of the reasons why our trip to India is so important.

While here, we have had a chance to meet with our regulatory counterparts in the Indian government, as well as the drug manufacturers that are either based here, or who have facilities in the country. Needless to say, we are learning a great deal.

It’s no secret there have been challenges associated with the quality of generic drugs coming out of some facilities in India. Some people have asked us here if the FDA is “singling out” India for increased inspections. We simply reply that increased exports to the U.S. result in increased inspection, no matter where you are in the world. FDA inspections ensure that when a firm wants to export drugs to the United States, the drugs meet FDA standards and will be of the quality patients and consumers want and deserve.

Cynthia Schnedar

Cynthia Schnedar, J.D., Director of the Office of Compliance at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

And we’ve been happy to hear that this focus on quality is, in fact, a shared goal, held by both the Indian — and India-based — regulators and pharmaceutical manufacturers with whom we’ve met. They understand what we mean when we tell them the FDA is interested in helping to build a global network of quality; that it doesn’t matter whether a drug is made in Hoboken or Hyderabad, if it is intended for use in the United States, the drug, and the way and under what conditions it’s produced, will be reviewed using the same standards and levels of scrutiny.

That scrutiny, by the way, doesn’t always have to have negative results. The inspections associated with drug production have been a central discussion point on this trip, and we’ve brought news that has been well-received, especially by the drug industry. We shared our proposed plan to create a new approach to facility inspections, one that will not only note problems, but will also allow our inspectors to document where a firm’s quality management system exceeds what would be required to meet regulatory compliance. To put it simply: the inspections can yield also carrots, and not just sticks.

Meeting in India

Last week, FDA’s Howard Sklamberg and Cynthia Schnedar participated in a panel discussion on drug quality with drug associations in India

So what are the carrots? These findings could be used to influence the frequency of our inspection of a particular facility, and possibly even support regulatory flexibility around post-approval manufacturing changes. These kinds of decisions would be anchored by data that proves that the risks of manufacturing problems in a certain facility are minimal.

We have often said we cannot inspect our way to absolute drug quality. Many of our discussions on this trip have focused on the importance of firms enhancing their own “quality cultures.” And, to that end, we know there are initiatives we can take to help them succeed. For example, we will be piloting a new questionnaire that could be used to further standardize inspections, with the goal of uniformly harvesting the kind of data that supports accurate measures of quality. We believe that by improving the inspection process in this way, future “metrics” that define quality will be understood and aspired to by manufacturers — no matter where they are in the world.

CEO meeting in India

Last week, FDA’s Howard Sklamberg and Cynthia Schnedar met with pharmaceutical CEOs in India to discuss drug quality

Of course, enforcement has been, and will continue to be, an important part of our program to ensure drug quality. Enforcement is a particularly appropriate tool when a firm does not submit accurate data to us. FDA relies on information to do its job, and faulty information means that we cannot ensure the quality of the drugs that the firm produces.

It is already clear to us, after speaking with regulators and industry leaders here, that India intends to be part of that global community that is committed to producing the highest quality of drugs possible. Through workshops and joint inspections, we continue to work with the Indian government to raise awareness and understanding of our inspections processes. And to the industry leaders we have met with here, we have pledged to continue to collect their feedback on how we might be able to help them improve regarding quality issues, and to incentivize them to do so.

India has a significant spot in the constellation of drug-producing nations. As one Indian official so eloquently said to us, we have “a galaxy” in common. And, we are happy to add, that the brightest star in that galaxy may just be our shared commitment to a global system of drug quality.

Howard Sklamberg is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy

Cynthia Schnedar, J.D., is Director of the Office of Compliance at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

FDA Continues to Lead in Precision Medicine

By: Janet Woodcock, M.D.

Everyone knows that different people don’t respond the same way to medications, and that “one size does not fit all.” FDA has been pushing for targeted drug therapies, sometimes called “personalized medicines” or “precision medicines,” for a long time.

Janet WoodcockTargeted therapies make use of blood tests, images of the body, or other technologies to measure individual factors called “biomarkers.” These biomarkers can then be used to determine who is most likely to benefit from a treatment, who is at higher risk of a side effect, or who needs a different dose. Targeting therapy can improve drug safety, and make sure that only people likely to have a good response get put on a drug.

Targeted therapies have gained public attention since President Obama announced a Precision Medicine Initiative in his most recent State of the Union address. This initiative will reinforce our work at FDA, where development of targeted drug therapies has been a priority since the 1990s. In 1998, FDA approved the targeted therapy, Herceptin (trastuzumab), offering new hope for many patients with breast cancer. High levels of a biomarker, known as “HER-2,” identified breast tumors that were more likely to be susceptible to this drug.

Since the approval of Herceptin, the development of targeted therapies has grown rapidly. FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approved 30 targeted therapies since 2012, including Kalydeco (ivacaftor), a targeted drug for cystic fibrosis. In 2014 alone, eight of the 41 novel drugs approved were targeted, including:

  1. Lynparza (olaparib) for the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
  2. Blincyto (blinatumomab) for the treatment of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).
  3. Harvoni (ledipasvir and sofosbuvir) to treat patients with chronic hepatitis C infection.
  4. Viekira Pak (ombitasvir, paritaprevir, dasabuvir and ritonavir) for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C infection.
  5. Cardelga (eliglustat) for the long-term treatment of Gaucher disease type 1.
  6. Beleodaq (belinostat) for the treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma.
  7. Zykadia (ceritinib) to treat patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
  8. Vimizim (elosulfase alpha) for the treatment of Mucopolysaccharidosis Type IV (Morquio Syndrome).

Since the 1990s, FDA has also been working on personalized drug dosing. People differ in how they eliminate a drug—some eliminate it much more slowly than most other people and are susceptible to overdosing, and others eliminate it much faster, and may not get any effect. There are biomarkers to identify people who have these unusual results, and CDER has been actively working for more than 15 years to put these findings into drug labels, so that each patient gets the correct dose, particularly for highly toxic or critically important drugs.

Personalized drug safety has also gotten attention. Often, one person experiences a serious side effect that does not affect thousands of others. Science is beginning to unlock the reasons for these rare toxicities, and the labels of some medicines advise screening people to make sure they are not at high risk for a severe side effect. This can make drugs much safer.

CDER has been recognized with awards from the Personalized Medicine Coalition and the Personalized Medicine World Conference for its longstanding work in this area.

CDER uses a lot of flexibility when reviewing applications for targeted drugs. Targeting people with a good chance of response means fewer people are eligible for a drug. CDER has adapted to the resulting small development programs. For example, among the targeted therapies approved in recent years, almost 60 percent were approved on the basis of one main clinical trial along with supporting evidence. In addition, 90 percent used one or more of FDA’s expedited programs such as Breakthrough, Fast Track, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval.

It is still hard to develop targeted therapies for many diseases, because there isn’t enough scientific understanding of why the disease occurs and what biomarkers would be useful. For many common illnesses, much more research is needed to reveal the individual differences that would enable development of targeted therapies.

We still have much work to do. However, we are pleased to see substantial progress and look forward to continuing our efforts to advance biomarkers, which will help bring additional important new therapies to patients in need.

Janet Woodcock, M.D., is Director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

FDA Advances Medical Product Innovation

By: Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.

On March 10, I had the pleasure of appearing with my colleague Dr. Francis Collins before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions to testify at a hearing on the subject of “Continuing America’s Leadership in Medical Innovation for Patients.” I thought the broader public health community would be interested in my oral testimony, and so I am sharing it here:

Margaret Hamburg, M.D.“Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I’m very pleased to be here today to discuss our shared goal of speeding innovative treatments to patients. FDA looks forward to working with you on this important effort.

As you have noted, this will be my last appearance before the Committee, as I am stepping down, but I want to thank you for your support over the years, and our constructive engagement with this committee to advance FDA’s public health mission.

I came to the Agency at a time of considerable uncertainty and change in the biomedical product industry; a time when dramatic advances in science and technology, some that my colleague Dr. Collins just outlined, demanded new models and approaches.

In turn, we took a very serious look at our role in advancing biomedical product innovation to ensure that we would be a gateway, not a barrier, to the delivery of better, safer and more effective treatments and cures.

In fact, this has been a high priority for me throughout my tenure and I’m very pleased, as Sen. Murray noted, last year, we approved the most new drugs in almost 20 years, and more orphan drugs than ever before. Forty-one percent of these new approvals were first-in-class products, resulting in a breathtaking array of truly innovative new therapies for patients.

Today, FDA approves drugs faster on average than all other advanced nations: 40 days faster than Japan; 70 days faster than Canada; and 174 days faster than Europe. And FDA has made substantial improvements in the efficiency of medical device reviews as well.

Moreover, we’ve accomplished this while remaining the gold standard around the world for safety and effectiveness.

Yet despite these successes, too many diseases still await treatments and cures.  Serious public health needs, such as treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, are not being met. And rising R&D expenditures are not matched by a proportionate discovery of new treatments.

In this context, I want to address concerns raised by some that FDA regulation is the principal obstacle to the development of innovative treatments, and suggestions that FDA’s authorities and procedures must be fundamentally restructured.

As a physician, I know that if you incorrectly diagnose a patient’s condition, the treatment that you’ll prescribe is unlikely to work. Unless we correctly diagnose why cures are still lacking for many diseases, we’re unlikely to find the solutions that will actually deliver those cures so let me give you three examples of misconceptions.

First is the incorrect but commonly repeated assertion that FDA’s approval of new drugs lags behind other countries. The reality is starkly different: over 75% of the new drugs approved by Japan, EU, Canada, Australia Switzerland and FDA from 2004 to 2013 were approved first by FDA, according to a recent report by the British-based Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science. The result is that Americans are far more likely to get first access to a new medicine before patients abroad.

Second, FDA is said to be rigid and inflexible in its approach to requesting and using data for approval of a new drug. In fact, FDA’s clinical trial requirements have been steadily increasing in flexibility:

  • 45% of new drugs are approved based on a surrogate endpoint;
  • one-third are approved on the basis of a single clinical trial;
  • Last year, we used expedited approval processes for more drugs than ever before – about 66%.

And thanks in part to the new authority that you gave us in FDASIA, 74 drugs had received the new “breakthrough” designation.

My final example is the concern that investment in biotechnology has dropped precipitously in the United States, and that the FDA is to blame. But in the words of The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA), “Biotechnology investment dollars rose 29 percent in 2014 to $6.0 billion . . , placing it as the second largest investment sector for the year in terms of dollars invested.”  And Jonathan Leff, a leading biotechnology investor affiliated with NVCA, said that one of the two reasons for the increased investment in biotechnology is the improved regulatory climate in recent years at FDA.

I cite these examples to suggest not that the world of biomedical research and product development is all fine, but to urge that we start with the right diagnosis. We do not want solutions based on inaccurate diagnoses.

I caution against solutions that seek to lower the safety and effectiveness standards for approval of the medical products on which Americans rely. Remember that the great leaps forward in evidence-based medicine of the last 50 years have come in part because of the high standards for product approval that Congress put in place after a series of disasters involving unsafe and ineffective medical products. Those standards have also boosted the confidence that Americans place in medical products and that the world places in the American biomedical product industry.

Together, we can build on the progress that has been made in recent years, to further advance biomedical science and improve the lives of patients. And there are some areas from the FDA perspective that I believe we can all agree need to be improved.

First, patients are uniquely positioned to inform medical product development. Treatments can better meet their needs if we can capture science-based, disease-specific patient input to incorporate in the development and review process.

Second, more attention needs to be given to the development of “biomarkers” and surrogate endpoints. These can help scientists identify and target successful medical treatments and shorten drug development times as Dr. Collins was noting in his remarks.

FDA has accepted hundreds of biomarkers and surrogates, such as blood pressure changes, blood sugar reduction, and tumor shrinkage. Yet biomarkers are still lacking for many diseases, such as Alzheimer’s. The biggest obstacle is that scientists do not sufficiently understand the causes of Alzheimer’s and other diseases to identify drug targets or identify which patients will benefit from certain drugs. To solve this problem we must support the establishment of strong public-private partnerships, bringing the best minds together to develop the science that we need.

Third, evidence from clinical experience (called “real world evidence” or “big data” by some) provides a vital tool to monitor medical products in use in the marketplace. FDA’s Sentinel Initiative, with more than 170 million lives, is one of the largest uses of this type of information in healthcare and proving vital for monitoring safety and emerging safety concerns. The science of using evidence from clinical experience to establish product effectiveness is still in its infancy. Real progress demands that we develop the methodologies needed to harness its promise.

And fourth, FDA and industry agree that the Agency must be able to attract and retain talented scientists to review cutting-edge products. We look forward to working with you to improve our ability to hire and retain these experts.

So let me close by underscoring that speeding innovation while maintaining standards for safety and efficacy serves patients well, supports the needs of our health care system, and has enabled the medical product industry in this country to thrive. And so I thank you for your support for our efforts at FDA and the work you are going to be doing going forward to advance that work and the work of all our colleagues in the biomedical research community so we can deliver on the promise of science for patients.”

Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. is Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration