Achieving an AIDS Free Generation – Highlights from the PEPFAR Annual Meeting in Durban, South Africa

By: Katherine Bond, Sc. D. and Jude Nwokike, MSc, MPH

The U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Ambassador Deborah Birx, recently described the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) as “one of the greatest expressions of American compassion, ingenuity, and shared humanity in our nation’s rich history.”

Kate Bond and Jude Nwokike

Katherine C. Bond, Director of FDA’s Office of Strategy, Partnerships and Analytics, Office of International Programs and Jude Nwokike, FDA’s PEPFAR Liaison, Office of Strategy and Partnerships, Office of International Programs.

We recently attended the PEPFAR 2014 Annual Meeting in Durban, South Africa. Since its inception in 2003, PEPFAR, the U.S. Government’s initiative to help save the lives of those living with HIV/AIDS around the world, is supporting 6.7 million people on anti-retroviral treatment (ART) and has resulted in one million babies born HIV-free. In FY 2013 alone, PEPFAR supported 12.8 million pregnant women for HIV testing and counseling and as of September 30, 2013 will have supported voluntary medical male circumcisions for 4.2 million men in east and southern Africa.

The focus of this year’s conference was on delivering a sustainable AIDS Free Generation. We were privileged to represent FDA at the meeting, along with other Health and Human Services operating divisions –including the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

FDA has played a critical role in the PEPFAR program. As of March 2014, the Agency had approved or tentatively approved 170 antiretroviral drugs for use by PEPFAR, including 80 fixed dose combinations (FDCs), 24 of which are triple FDCs. Triple FDCs are significant because they have simplified ART from up to 20 pills a day to one pill daily — improving adherence to treatment, reducing the risk of developing resistance, and simplifying the supply chain.

We saw the direct impact of the program during a visit to the KwaMashu Community Health Centre, north of Durban in South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal Province. Formerly a sugar plantation, the area saw a mass resettlement of poor people in the early 1960’s. It was often the site of political violence during the Apartheid era, and is now characterized by inadequate housing, poor infrastructure, high unemployment and crime, and among the highest rates of HIV in the world.

In 2012, the prevalence of HIV in antenatal women in KwaZulu-Natal Province was 37.4%. With the support of PEPFAR, in 2014 over 12,000 adults and nearly 800 children are receiving anti-retroviral therapy at KwaMashu, extending life expectancy, and giving hope for a better future. This hope was especially apparent in two girls, ages 12 and 14, each living with HIV/AIDS, who spoke eloquently to us about being cared for by grandmothers and a dedicated cadre of area doctors, nurses, pharmacists and community workers.  One girl dreams of becoming a medical researcher and the other aspires to be a lawyer.

At the conference we learned that thirteen low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at the tipping point of overcoming the HIV/AIDS epidemic, with the number of those starting therapy exceeding the number of newly infected. This makes the goal of an AIDS Free Generation plausible. PEPFAR is supporting HIV/AIDS response in more than 100 LMICs. Also, promising comprehensive prevention strategies present great opportunities to stem the epidemic’s tide. But, even with PEPFAR’s numerous achievements, challenges still exist. In 2012 alone, there were 1.6 million deaths, 2.3 million new infections, and 260,000 babies born infected with HIV.

Scaling up treatment and effective preventive interventions, and sustaining support and access to care are critical to achieving an AIDS Free Generation.  Essential to sustainability is ensuring product availability, quality, and safety of medical products used in the PEPFAR program.  Several PEPFAR country representatives described challenges in supply chains attributable to weak regulatory infrastructure (for example, limited sources for Tenofovir-containing FDCs used as first line regimen); lack of capacity of PEPFAR country regulators to assure quality of rapid diagnostic kits; seizure of products at border posts because products are not registered or approved in a country; few national standards for diagnostics and medical devices; and limited capacity of local regulators for regulating medical devices. Representatives of several countries called for strong pharmacovigilance and post marketing surveillance.

Despite these challenges, there are promising developments that are likely to bring benefits to regulators in PEPFAR countries, and ultimately, the PEPFAR program’s beneficiaries. In May 2014, African nations voiced unified support for a World Health Assembly resolution on strengthening regulatory systems; reductions in time to register medicines has been reported by the African Medicines Registration Harmonization Initiative; and the WHO global surveillance and monitoring system for substandard, falsified and counterfeit medical products is receiving reports from, and issuing drug alerts based on vigilant reporting by, African regulators.

We held a special session on strengthening regulatory systems with our colleagues from a number of PEPFAR countries and identified several possible areas for future collaboration. Strengthening regulatory systems will be a key component in defining a sustainable path forward.

Katherine C. Bond is Director of FDA’s Office of Strategy, Partnerships and Analytics, Office of International Programs

Jude Nwokike is FDA’s PEPFAR Liaison, Office of Strategy and Partnerships, Office of International Programs

For more information please visit:

PEPFAR BLUEPRINT: Creating an AIDS-free Generation

Approved and Tentatively Approved Antiretrovirals in Association with the President’s Emergency Plan

Developing new tools to support regulatory use of “Next Gen Sequencing” data

By: Carolyn A. Wilson, Ph.D.

When you’re thirsty, you don’t want to take a drink from a fire hose. And when scientists are looking for data they don’t want to be knocked over with a flood of information that overwhelms their ability to analyze and make sense of it.

Carolyn WilsonThat’s especially true of data generated by some types of both human and non-human genome research called Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). This technology produces sets of data that are so large and complex that they overwhelm the ability of most computer systems to store, search, and analyze it, or transfer it to other computer systems.

The human genome comprises about 3 billion building blocks called nucleic acids; much medical research involves analyzing this huge storehouse of data by a process called sequencing—determining the order in which the nucleic acids occur, either in the entire genome or a specific part of it. The goal is often to find changes in the sequence that might be mutations that cause specific disease. Such information could be the basis of diagnostic tests, new treatments, or ways to track the quality of certain products, such as vaccines made from viruses.

NGS is a complicated technique, but basically it involves cutting the genome into millions of small pieces so you can use sophisticated chemical tricks and technologies to ignore the “junk” you don’t need, and then make up to hundreds of copies of each of the pieces you want to study. This enables additional techniques to identify changes in the sequence of nucleic acids that might be mutations. NSG enables scientists to fast-track this process by analyzing millions of pieces of the genome at the same time. For comparison, the famous human genome sequencing and analysis program that took 13 years to complete and cost $3 billion could now be completed in days for a few thousand dollars.

Man with HIVE Computer

The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) supported the development of High-Performance Integrated Virtual Environment (HIVE) technology, a private, cloud-based environment that comprises both a storage library of data and a powerful computing capacity being used to support Next Generation Sequencing of genomes.

In order to prepare FDA to review and understand the interpretation and significance of data in regulatory submissions that include NGS, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) supported the development of a powerful, data-hungry computer technology called High-Performance Integrated Virtual Environment (HIVE), which can consume, digest, analyze, manage, and share all this data. HIVE is a private cloud-based environment that comprises both a storage library of data and a powerful computing capacity. One specific algorithm (set of instructions for handling data) of HIVE that enables CBER scientists to manage the NGS fire hose is called HIVE-hexagon aligner. CBER scientists have used HIVE-hexagon in a variety of ways; for example, it helped scientists in the Office of Vaccines Research and Review study the genetic stability of influenza A viruses used to make vaccines. The scientists showed that this powerful tool might be very useful for determining if influenza viruses being grown for use in vaccines were accumulating mutations that could either reduce their effectiveness in preventing infections, or even worse, cause infections.

There’s another exciting potential to HIVE-hexagon research: the more scientists can learn about variations in genes that alter the way they work—or make them stop working–the more they can help doctors modify patient care to reflect those very personal differences. These differences can affect health, disease, and how individuals respond to treatments, such as chemotherapy and influenza vaccines. Such knowledge will contribute to advances in personalized medicine.

Team members at work in FDA's HIVE server room.

CBER scientists showed that HIVE might help scientists determine if influenza viruses being grown for use in vaccines were accumulating mutations that could either reduce their effectiveness in preventing infections or cause infections. Genome studies supported by HIVE will also contribute to advances in personalized medicine.

Because CBER’s HIVE installation has been so successful we are now collaborating with FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) to provide a second installation with greater capacity and computer power that takes advantage of the high-performance computing capacity there. When ready and approved by FDA for use, we will use this powerful, CBER-managed, inter-center resource to handle regulatory submissions.

HIVE-hexagon and its innovative NGS algorithms are just one major step CBER has taken recently as it continues its pioneering work in regulatory research to ensure that products for consumers are safe and effective. I’ll tell you about other exciting breakthroughs in my next update on CBER research.

Carolyn A. Wilson, Ph.D., is Associate Director for Research at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.

For more HIVE photos go to Flickr

FDASIA at Year Two

By Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.

Margaret Hamburg, M.D.Anniversaries are a time for stock-taking and today, on the second anniversary of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act or FDASIA, I’m pleased to report on the progress we’ve made implementing this multi-faceted law.

To date, we have completed nearly all of the deliverables we had scheduled for the first two years after FDASIA became law. And many of the new authorities under FDASIA are already having a positive impact on health. It’s difficult to cover all of our FDASIA work, but here are some highlights:

Preventing Drug Shortages: Drug shortages, which can have serious and immediate effects on patients and health care professionals, reached an all-time high in 2011, the year before FDASIA was enacted. In response to a Presidential Executive Order in December of that year, FDA issued an interim final rule to amend and broaden FDA regulations requiring certain manufacturers to give early notification of production interruptions that could cause drug shortages. FDASIA further broadened this requirement by requiring that other prescription drug manufacturers provide notification and also gave FDA additional authorities. In October 2013 FDA proposed a rule to implement these authorities and issued a strategic plan for addressing drug shortages. So far, with the help of early notifications, FDA was able to prevent 282 shortages in 2012 and 170 shortages in 2013. The number of drug shortages that did occur has also declined.

Promoting Innovation: FDASIA includes many provisions designed to encourage innovation. We have held meetings on the use of meta-analyses in drug applications; put in place a plan for implementing a benefit-risk framework for drug reviews, and issued a variety of guidance documents covering such topics as drug studies in children, abuse-deterrent drug development, antibacterial drug development and expedited review and development programs for serious diseases.

This latter guidance provided information that sponsors needed to know about our new Breakthrough Therapy designation that was part of FDASIA. This option exists for new drugs intended to treat a serious or life-threatening disease that, preliminary clinical evidence suggests, could provide a substantial improvement over available therapies. As of June 23, we had granted 52 requests for this designation, and of those, approved four new drugs and two new indications for previously approved drugs.

As part of our implementation of the FDASIA-related provisions related to medical devices, we proposed a strategy and recommendations for a risk-based health information technology (health IT) framework that would promote product innovation while maintaining appropriate patient protections and avoiding regulatory duplication; issued a proposed rule for implementing FDASIA’s streamlined new procedures for reclassifying a device; and published a final rule on a medical device unique identification or UDI with implementation in accordance with the timetable set in the law. UDIs will help the FDA identify product problems more quickly, better target recalls and improve patient safety. The riskiest medical devices will start bearing their UDI by September 24th.

Establishing and Strengthening User Fee Programs: An important element of FDASIA was reauthorizing user fees for prescription drugs and medical devices and creating new user fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilar biological drugs. User fees on some types of applications offer an important source of funding to support and maintain key activities, including FDA’s staff of experts who review the thousands of product submissions we receive every year. Since FDASIA took effect, review times for medical devices have been declining.  Our prescription drug user fee program is meeting or exceeding almost all of our performance goals agreed to with industry. We have acted on 54 percent of the generic drug applications, or amendments and supplements to generic drug applications which were pending in our inventory as of October 1, 2012. This helps ensure that consumers can have access to more low-cost drugs. And we have been able to provide advice concerning most of the 93 submissions from companies who are developing biosimilar biological drugs under a pathway that could also ultimately lower costs for consumers.

Enhancing Patient Engagement: A hallmark of FDASIA was a series of provisions intended to tap the patient perspective. Our Patient-Focused Drug Development Program allows us to more systematically obtain the patient’s perspective on a disease and its impact on the patients’ daily lives, the types of treatment benefit that matter most to patients, and the adequacy of the available therapies for the disease. In accordance with FDASIA, we have held patient meetings on eight diseases and have plans for meetings on 12 more. We have learned a great deal from patients in terms of their views of the symptoms of their condition, their feelings about how it affects their life, and their thoughts on ideal treatments and on participation in clinical trials to aid future drug development.  A FDA Voice blog post on patient reports captures these patient perspectives and much more.

Finally, Title VII of FDASIA provided FDA with numerous new authorities to protect the drug supply chain. We thought now was a good time to provide the public with a more detailed description of our work on Title VII, so we asked Howard Sklamberg, Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy, to write a separate blog on that topic.

FDA laid out a three-year plan for implementing FDASIA and we’re on our way to achieving our stated goals. To help the public follow our progress, we set up a dedicated webpage—the FDASIA-Track. It provides useful links to each action and is updated on a regular basis.

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

A Blueprint for Helping Children with Rare Diseases

Editor’s Note: This blog has been updated to provide additional information about our use of expedited programs to speed rare disease medical product development.

By Jill Hartzler Warner, J.D.

Jill WarnerThe U.S. Congress and the Food and Drug Administration have long focused on bringing new therapies to patients with rare diseases, including children.

Two years ago this week, Congress made another contribution to this effort by enacting the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The law directs our agency to take two actions to further the development of new therapies for children affected by rare diseases: (1) to hold a meeting with stakeholders and discuss ways to encourage and accelerate the development of new therapies for pediatric rare diseases, and (2) issue a report that includes a strategic plan for achieving this goal.

There are unique challenges when developing drugs, biological products and medical devices for the pediatric population. Not only is there the potential for children to respond differently to products as they grow but there are also additional ethical concerns for this patient population.

But these challenges are further compounded when developing therapies for pediatric rare diseases. For example, rare disease product development, by definition, means there is only a small potential group of patients available to participate in clinical studies that can help determine whether a product is safe and effective.

In our FDASIA meeting in January, we heard a variety of suggestions on clinical trial design and data collection from hundreds of the participating stakeholders from academia; clinical and treating communities; patient and advocacy groups; industry and governmental agencies.

These discussions helped inform our Strategic Plan for Accelerating the Development of Therapies for Pediatric Rare Diseases, which we posted on our website today. It outlines how we plan to meet the following four objectives:

Enhance foundational and translational science. Our strategy is to fill essential information gaps through such measures as fostering the conduct of natural history studies for pediatric rare diseases and by identifying unmet pediatric needs in medical device development. We also plan to issue guidance for sponsors on common issues in rare disease drug development and to refine and expand the use of computational modeling for medical devices.

Strengthen communication, collaboration, and partnering. Robust cooperation within FDA, among agencies, governments and private entities is necessary to enable the exchange of information on the issues of developing treatments for pediatric rare diseases. Single entities by themselves usually don’t have sufficient resources or expertise to overcome the product development challenges posed by pediatric rare diseases.

Advance the use of regulatory science to aid clinical trial design and performance.  Regulatory science helps develop new tools, standards, and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality, and performance of all FDA-regulated products. Of note, we plan to facilitate better understanding of biomarkers and clinical outcome assessments that are useful for the development of treatments for pediatric rare diseases. We also plan to further develop the expedited approval pathway for medical devices intended to treat unmet medical needs; and use FDA’s web-based resources to update and expand awareness of issues involving the development of medical products for pediatric rare diseases.

Enhance FDA’s review process. Our strategies include fostering efforts to learn patients’ and caregivers’ perspectives and incorporating this information into medical product development. We also plan to further develop and implement a structured approach to benefit-risk assessment in the drug review process and establish a patient engagement panel as part of the medical device advisory committee process.

The report notes our use of expedited programs to speed rare disease medical product development. For example, the accelerated approval program allows for approval of products to treat serious and life-threatening diseases based on an effect on a surrogate marker, such as blood test, urine marker, or an intermediate clinical endpoint, that is believed to be reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit to the patient. Under accelerated approval, further studies are required after approval to confirm that the drug provides a clinical benefit to the patient.

More than 80 new products have been approved under the accelerated approval program, and many of these have been for rare diseases. But it’s important to note that in some cases FDA exercises regulatory flexibility to approve drugs under the traditional approval pathway, rather than under the accelerated approval program. In fact, most of the recent new drug approvals for rare diseases have been approved under the traditional approval pathway because FDA has determined that the drug provides a clinical benefit to the patient. Such approvals make new drugs available to patients, and also mean that companies are not required to do confirmatory trials after approval.

FDA is committed to continuing its use of expedited programs and regulatory flexibility to speed development and approval of safe and effective drugs for all patients with rare diseases, and the strategies outlined in this plan will help us achieve a major goal of FDASIA and for our agency, which is to speed the development of therapies for children with rare diseases.

 

Jill Hartzler Warner, J.D., is FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs

Finding the Cause of Thrombosis in Some Immunoglobulin Treatments

By: Mikhail Ovanesov, Ph.D.

The Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Blood Research and Review (OBRR) has a broad mission to ensure the safety and efficacy of products it regulates. It also does mission-related research, some of which can be described as problem-solving.

Mikhail OvanesovOne of the problems on which OBRR focused recently was a serious adverse effect linked to some treatments with immune globulin intravenous (IGIV), a product that contains pooled immunoglobulin (antibody) extracted from the plasma of thousands of donors. Licensed IGIV uses include the treatment of immune deficiencies and autoimmune disorders.

These immunoglobulin treatments are generally safe, although they can cause mild to moderate adverse effects during and after infusion, such as headache, malaise and nausea. Less common but potentially fatal complications are the formation of blood clots.  These thrombotic events (TEs), as they are known, can block large arteries or veins, causing heart attack, stroke, deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. That’s why, since October 2003, FDA has recommended precautionary labeling for IGIV products that includes the risk of thrombotic events. But while the new labeling helped raise awareness of this risk, the causes of TE remained unclear. In fact, since many patients receiving IGIV are already considered at risk for thrombosis, the causes were often attributed to the patient’s medical condition. The fact that TEs only rarely occurred in clusters linked to a single lot of IGIV from a particular manufacturer also made it difficult to pin down a specific cause for these adverse effects.

That all changed in May 2010 when TEs — stroke and myocardial infarction in several patients — linked to two lots from one manufacturer prompted the company to put a hold on the release of these lots. My laboratory responded by launching a series of tests to find out what caused the TEs. We studied the ability of four different lots of IGIV to generate the blood protein thrombin, which triggers clotting. Specifically, we compared two lots which caused stroke or myocardial infarction in several patients with those that did not. Our work showed that the lots linked to TEs induced faster and higher generation of thrombin. We then confirmed these results by recording blood clot formation under a specially designed video microscope. The lots associated with TEs again demonstrated higher rates of clotting. Additional tests confirmed that the thrombin generation test reliably identifies lots that are potentially thrombogenic.

In early August 2010, OBRR shared its data with the company, which confirmed the results and established product evaluation methods using similar coagulation assays. After the company voluntarily withdrew 31 IGIV lots from the United States market, there were many more international reports of TEs. By the end of September, all product lots were voluntarily removed from the U.S. market.

But we still didn’t know what was triggering the rapid rise in thrombin. So we continued our studies and identified a blood protein called coagulation factor XIa as an impurity in IGIV products causing thrombosis. This enabled us to develop a Factor XIa assay that could determine if an IGIV lot contained this thrombogenic impurity. We then tested other lots of licensed and investigational IGIV products, which prompted testing and manufacturing changes by industry to improve the safety of several other products.

OBRR has since then been working with the World Health Organization and other laboratories to ensure that tests for factor XIa done anywhere in the world will work the same way and give reliable results.

This work has also contributed to the ongoing development in CBER of a new lot release assay for immunoglobulin products.

These important contributions by OBRR illustrate the leading role the FDA plays in ensuring the safety and efficacy of the products it regulates. As FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D., put it when discussing the role of the agency: “The bottom line is that if FDA does not do its job, there is no backstop. Ours is a unique role, and it is critical that we do it well.”

Mikhail Ovanesov, Ph.D., is a visiting scientist in the Laboratory of Hematology in the Office of Blood Research and Review at CBER

FDA and Health Professionals, Safeguarding the Public’s Health

By: Anna M. Fine, Pharm.D.

At our recent third annual Health Professional Organizations Conference, some of FDA’s most senior leaders exchanged views and discussed issues of mutual interest with senior representatives from key health professional organizations.

Anna FineHeld on FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md., and organized by the FDA’s Office of Health & Constituent Affairs (OHCA), the event was attended by 30 professional organizations representing physicians, nurses, physician assistants, dentists, optometrists, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and others.

An open and ongoing dialogue between these professionals and FDA is a vital part of addressing many important public health issues. In her opening remarks, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg offered a few examples, such as health professionals’ contributions to the FDA’s MedWatch and Adverse Event Reporting programs and their work in interpreting and addressing medical products’ safety signals. A drug’s safety profile is continually evaluated after FDA approval, and health professionals are encouraged to report suspected adverse events to FDA which allows FDA to conduct comprehensive safety evaluations. Dr. Hamburg also emphasized the importance of health professionals’ engagement in regulatory science research, which provides essential support for the agency’s decisions and ability to bring innovative products to market.

Mitch Zeller, the Director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, speaking at the third annual Health Professional Organizations Conference, on May 14, 2014

Mitch Zeller, Director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, speaking at the agency’s third annual Health Professional Organizations Conference. See more photos of this event on Flickr.

Key FDA leaders who gave presentations throughout the day included Mitch Zeller, the Director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products; Dr. Stephen Ostroff, Acting Chief FDA Scientist; and Dr. Peter Lurie, Acting Associate Commissioner of FDA’s Office of Planning and Policy.

In addition, senior scientists from FDA’s centers for drugs, medical devices and food discussed FDA’s priorities and answered questions from the audience. The robust dialogue between the panel members and our stakeholders covered many public health issues including youth and tobacco and FDA’s proposed changes to the food label.

Feedback from the audience highlights the need for such a conference.

“It’s great to have this dialogue with FDA officials. It demonstrates that they respect our organizations and want our feedback,” said one stakeholder representative.

“I love coming to these annual meetings, not only to meet FDA personnel but to talk with colleagues in other professions. This is a one-of-a-kind forum,” said another.

As a pharmacist and team leader within OHCA, I can attest to the fact that my FDA colleagues and I benefited as well. We learned a lot about our stakeholders’ concerns and established new connections with health professional organizations—contacts that we plan to follow-up on to explore new opportunities for mutual cooperation and collaboration in the interest of the public health.

Anna M. Fine, Pharm.D., is Director of the Health Professional Liaison Program in FDA’s Office of Health and Constituent Affairs.

For National Women’s Health Week, FDA Resources Help Women Make Informed Health Choices

By: Marsha B. Henderson, M.C.R.P.

“Ask your mother.” In households throughout the country, women often make decisions about foods and medical products for themselves and their loved ones.

8547850411_6e188c4b11_o-1As we celebrate National Women’s Health Week (May 11-17), I want to highlight some of the many ways in which FDA is working to make sure that women have the resources they need to make informed health choices.

FDA’s Office of Women’s Health (OWH) offers educational resources to help women at every stage of their adult lives—covering topics that range from college health to healthy aging. We develop and disseminate easy-to-read health materials and educational videos for women. We also connect women to these resources and other safety information on the FDA’s For Women website.

Throughout this week, OWH will be conducting special health promotions to connect women to resources on how to stay healthy. Starting today, women can order a free kit of OWH health materials on topics including mammograms, sleep problems, pregnancy, and contact-lens care. OWH is also collaborating with FDA’s Office of Communications to share tips for new mothers and other resources.

Lastly, we’re using social media to challenge women to take better care of their health. Encourage the women in your networks to follow us on Pinterest for a special challenge and health tips each day of the week. Use #1wk4health to participate.  In addition, follow @fdawomen and join us on May 13 at 1 pm for a Twitter chat we are co-hosting with the National Institute of Health’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Office of Research on Women’s Health; the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Minority Health; and Everyday Health.

Once the week is over, I hope you will continue to look to FDA for women’s health resources. Encourage the women in your community to read our health materials, watch a video or participate in one of our social media activities.

Marsha B. Henderson, M.C.R.P., is FDA’s Assistant Commissioner for Women’s Health

Building Expertise and Crossing Boundaries to Improve Oversight

By: Howard Sklamberg, J.D.

To keep the food supply safe, have safe, effective, and high quality medical products, and decrease the harms of tobacco product use, we have to work with the rest of the world.

Howard SklambergAs FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy (GO), I oversee FDA’s efforts to further advance its thinking and strategies from a primarily domestic to a globally focused regulator.

GO coordinates the efforts of FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) and the Office of International Programs (OIP), and works with all of FDA’s product centers on scientific, manufacturing or other regulatory challenges. The highly skilled and dedicated workforce in ORA and OIP is responsible for conducting domestic and foreign inspections, deepening collaborations with local, state and foreign regulatory partners, helping these regulatory partners to strengthen their regulatory systems, and fostering the use of science-based standards and regulatory coherence around the globe to promote the public health of our citizens.

We have to be able to share information with our regulatory partners. We need their help to implement new regulations that have worldwide impact on the oversight of food under the Food Safety Modernization Act and medical products under the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. Working together with these partners, we can ensure an effective public health safety net for our citizens and communities.

An important new priority for FDA is to make fundamental changes in the way we operate in today’s world by aligning our efforts across the agency to keep pace with the acceleration of scientific innovation and the global expansion of the markets. So much of FDA’s work cuts across multiple product areas. How do we make that work as a large and complex agency?

Commissioner Hamburg and senior leaders across the Agency are committed to strengthening our ability to do just that and are collaborating to achieve greater operational and program alignment across the Centers and ORA.

A key part of this process is to enhance specialization across FDA. For ORA, enhanced specialization means that investigators, compliance officers, import reviewers, laboratory personnel, managers and others will have increased technical expertise in a specific commodity area and will work closely with subject matter experts in FDA’s centers. Over time, ORA’s geographic-based model will evolve to a commodity-specific, program-based model that will provide ORA staff the opportunity to gain increased expertise in specific product areas, such as pharmaceuticals, food, animal feed, medical devices, biologics, and tobacco. They will work as part of a team with the staff from other centers, collaborating, for example, with the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research on pharmaceutical oversight or with the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on food safety issues.

It is especially important that experts in the centers and ORA be engaged in helping to develop compliance policies and priorities. Working with the centers on these broader concerns puts ORA investigators and compliance officers in a better position to implement the preventive approaches contained in new statutes and work together more seamlessly with the centers.

These and other changes that are part of the agency’s focus on program alignment will deepen our knowledge and make us more effective and efficient, with more clarity and coherence in our communications and actions.

This process is still in its early stages. There is a lot of planning still to be done, and we will work to ensure a transparent and inclusive process. Nevertheless, change is coming and I am excited and proud to be part of a transformation that can only strengthen our efforts to safeguard the foods and medical products that are so important in the lives of people all over the world.

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

Johns Hopkins and UCSF-Stanford join FDA’s Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation

By: Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D.

If you’ve been following my blog series about the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS), you know about a critical component of nearly all FDA efforts to promote innovative approaches to developing and evaluating our regulated products – collaboration! This week FDA made two new additions to its network of academic partnerships known as Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSIs).

Stephen OstroffThe first partner brings together a team of leading scientists at the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) in a joint effort with Stanford University. The second, Johns Hopkins University, builds on a long history of collaboration with FDA. Both partners received FDA funding through a competitive application process to establish CERSIs that will promote cross-disciplinary regulatory science training, scientific exchanges, and leading-edge research focused on FDA science priority areas.

This latest expansion of our CERSI network is an exciting development. The specialized, cutting-edge science required for FDA’s increasingly complex mission makes it imperative that we leverage available knowledge and infrastructure from collaborative partners in academia. These partnerships enrich the breadth and depth of FDA expertise, enabling us to base our regulatory decisions on the most current scientific evidence. They also enable FDA to bring its expansive experience to academia, ensuring that the new scientific approaches being developed at these institutions can be applied in a way that increases their usefulness for evaluating FDA-regulated products. And most important of all, patients and consumers will ultimately benefit from the investment.

Like those FDA previously established at the University of Maryland and Georgetown University, CERSIs are part of FDA’s effort to promote a vibrant, collaborative, regulatory science culture that enables us to tackle the scientific challenges presented by breakthroughs in medical product development and to improve food safety and quality.

As with the others, the joint UCSF-Stanford and the Johns Hopkins CERSIs will be managed by OCS’s Office of Regulatory Science and Innovation, together with teams of scientists from across FDA. Each new CERSI brings specific goals and unique strengths to enhancing FDA’s regulatory research and review.

The UCSF-Stanford CERSI will bring West Coast representation to the CERSI network and enable FDA to access UCSF’s powerhouse in quantitative sciences and pharmacology. Pre-eminent teams of scientists from both institutions and FDA scientists will be working together to develop and offer courses and workshops in drug development and regulatory science through UCSF’s American Course in Drug Development and Regulatory Sciences (ACDRS).

This CERSI will also offer scientific exchanges and training that target three of FDA’s regulatory science priority areas: transforming toxicology to improve product safety, improving clinical studies and evaluation, and harnessing diverse data through information sciences to improve health outcomes. In addition to FDA funding, the UCSF-Stanford CERSI is leveraging funds from the two academic institutions, through courses like the ACDRS, and from a recent Burroughs Wellcome Foundation Award in Innovation in Regulatory Sciences.

The Johns Hopkins CERSI will focus on three core FDA strategic priorities: clinical evaluations, social and behavioral science, and food safety. The university’s internationally recognized faculty in these areas and its geographic proximity to FDA will facilitate intellectual exchange among university faculty, FDA staff, and scientists. FDA staff can take advantage of workshops, symposia, courses, certificate programs, and a Master’s degree in Regulatory Science as well as others areas close to FDA’s strategic goals. Johns Hopkins is also known as a leader in innovative approaches to educational and life-long learning, including Internet-based courses that will be available to FDA scientists and staff worldwide.

Collaborating with our academic partners is crucial to our ability to expand the scientific foundation and infrastructure FDA needs to deliver on the promises of using 21st century science and technology to fulfill our regulatory mission.

Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D., is FDA’s Acting Chief Scientist

The Commissioner’s Fellowship Program: A Win-Win for FDA and Public Health

By: Dr. Stephen M. Ostroff

As part of my FDA Voice blog series on the important work going on in FDA’s Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS), I’d like to highlight an FDA program that is giving top-tier, early career health care professionals, scientists, and engineers the chance to gain broad exposure to FDA regulatory science and scientific review opportunities. Led by OCS’s Office of Scientific Professional Development, the Commissioner’s Fellowship Program (CFP) is accepting applications from April 16 to May 26, 2014. Those who are accepted into the CFP will be joining FDA’s 7th class of Fellows.

Stephen OstroffDuring the two-year program, Fellows complete rigorous graduate-level coursework and conduct cutting-edge research on targeted scientific, policy, or regulatory issues under the mentorship of an FDA senior-scientist preceptor.

In the CFP, a Fellow is able to gain real experience in an FDA biology, physics, or engineering lab, work with a clinical review team, or work at a regional field laboratory or office. The coursework provides a common core understanding of the science behind regulatory review, encompassing activities across all FDA-regulated product areas.

Specific Fellow projects may focus on FDA review of sponsor applications for new products, monitoring product quality and safety, or other scientific or engineering topics. Fellows work closely with FDA scientists to create better research and evaluation tools and approaches, like assays for chemical or pathogen detection, or methods to assess clinical or health care data. Other science and policy areas of focus may involve foods or medical products in disciplines ranging from laboratory sciences to engineering, law, and ethics.

FDA launched the Fellowship Program in 2008 to achieve three critical goals:

1)      Attract to FDA top-tier scientists who can help tackle targeted regulatory science areas;

2)      Provide regulatory science training to expand the pool of experts;

3)      Recruit top scientific talent — scientists who may not have considered FDA in planning their career.

Since the program started, FDA has graduated 164 Commissioner’s Fellows, 75% of whom continued to work at FDA after completing the program. Our graduates have produced 175 publications based on their Fellowship work, represented FDA with 211 regulatory science presentations, authored or co-authored 917 reviews – ranging from original applications to supplements – and 26 Fellows have been the proud recipients of FDA Honor Awards.

The Fellows have brought an infusion of innovative ideas, new talents, and skills to FDA to help build the strong scientific foundation we need in our research and review activities. In turn, the CFP has enabled Fellows to develop their regulatory expertise and work confidently in the FDA environment.

Those Fellows who pursue careers outside FDA bring a deeper understanding of regulatory science and of FDA to their organizations. They enrich the regulatory science enterprise, whether by improving the quality of applications to FDA or by applying the knowledge and tools they’ve acquired through the CFP to develop practical solutions to an important public health challenge.

Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D., is FDA’s Acting Chief Scientist

For more information on eligibility criteria for the FDA Commissioner’s Fellowship Program and to apply for the upcoming class, please visit this Web link:

FDA Commissioner’s Fellowship Program Application Checklist