FDA Budget Matters: Infrastructure to Support Robust Generic Drug Competition

By: Scott Gottlieb, M.D.

The FDA launched its Drug Competition Action Plan more than a year ago, with the aim of advancing policies that would promote robust generic drug entry as a way to foster competition and lower drug prices. Access to drugs is a matter of public health. And among the best ways to help consumers get broader access to medicines is through policies that help ensure branded drugs are subject to timely generic competition.

Dr. Scott GottliebOur work is far from finished. But the policies we’ve advanced are already showing benefits toward these goals. The benefits we’ve seen reinforce the fact that policy can be used as a vehicle to advance these purposes.

New resources have also helped advance our work. Owing in large measure to the FDA’s implementation of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA), which funded critical enhancements to FDA’s generic drugs program, our staff eliminated the backlog of generic drug applications. In 2017, we also approved the largest number of generic drugs in the FDA’s history.

As part of GDUFA, as well as through our own new efforts, the FDA also has put policies in place to promote generic drug development in areas where there’s inadequate competition. This includes a focus on developing new guidance aimed at promoting development of generic versions of complex drugs. These are drugs that are often harder to copy. By advancing clear, objective, science-based guidance for developing generic copies of complex drugs, we hope to foster more competition.

And the FDA also has improved the efficiency and predictability of the generic drug review process to help promote more robust generic drug competition. For example, we’re prioritizing the review of generic drug applications for which there are no blocking patents or exclusivities. The aim is to promote competition so that there are at least four approved applications for each product (including the brand drug). Our data shows that there are significant price decreases once there are at least three generic drugs on the market. Our new policy will help ensure that there is robust competition across the market that will drive down drug costs to consumers.

In addition, we’re taking other new steps to curtail various forms of “gaming” by brand companies, where some sponsors sometimes adopt tactics that seek to delay entry of generic competition.

But we know that we need to do even more to promote access and competition. And so we’ve put forward a broader plan, as part of the President’s Budget, to achieve these aims.

Toward these goals, the President’s fiscal year 2019 Budget Request included $37.6 million to fund two initiatives that will help modernize aspects of our generic drug review process.

The first initiative will create a new review platform — the Knowledge-aided Assessment & Structured Application (KASA) platform — to modernize generic drug review from a text-based to a data-based assessment. The KASA will enable a structured review that will make the application review process more efficient, and allow deficiencies to be spotted earlier. This will allow the FDA to provide earlier feedback to generic drug makers that will, in turn, help to reduce multiple cycles of application review, one of our key aims and a primary focus of our overall efforts to speed market access to new generic medicines. Going through multiple review cycles is one of the primary reasons why the approval of generic drug applications is sometimes delayed many years. The new KASA system will help sponsors submit high-quality and more complete applications on the first submission. It will decrease the risk that applications will be refused for receipt and reduce the number of review cycles that applications undergo.

We anticipate that the new platform will allow more generic applications to be approved after the first cycle. This will promote timely generic entry and increase overall competition.

The new platform will also enable more efficient and robust knowledge management across different aspects of the FDA’s review process, helping reviewers capture and manage all of the information about products allowing for more seamless and effective product surveillance based upon quality and risk. This system will benefit both the agency and generic drug sponsors by increasing overall speed and efficiency of the pre- and post-market processes.

Having a structured template that completely replaces the current largely narrative-based review will allow for more consistent and predictable entry and analysis of data. Current assessments require manual review of the entire application. KASA will enable automated analysis of some portions of the application, which will save time, and ensure consistency.

The second initiative is aimed at promoting the more widespread use of existing generic drugs by looking for ways to keep generic drug labeling up-to-date with the latest information about each medicine’s risks and benefits. Generic drugs are generally required to have the same labeling as the brand drug they reference. And the burden to update the labeling with new safety and effectiveness information is typically born by the brand company.

However, when brand reference drug companies voluntarily withdraw their marketing applications, they also stop updating their labeling. When this happens, the FDA loses a key mechanism that the agency relies on as a way to update generic labeling. This can stymie the ability to modernize generic labels. In turn, when labels become out-of-date, providers may not have complete information about the full range of benefits and risks of the product. This can serve to diminish the use of these lower cost alternatives.

Consistent with our current authorities, which allow for certain types of labeling changes to continue to be made for generic drugs after the brand drug is withdrawn, this budget request will provide the funding to allow the FDA to assume more responsibility to help bring these drug labels up to date. We intend to launch this initiative initially for oncology products.

Our goal is to help ensure that doctors and patients have up-to-date information for these products. This will better inform clinical decisions regarding these medicines, and help promote more widespread use of low-cost, generic alternatives. By ensuring generic product labels are up to date, we’ll promote wider and more clinically optimal use of these drugs, which can save patients money.

We appreciate that the appropriations committees of both chambers of Congress supported this budget request in their appropriations bills. Congress has long recognized the need for — and importance of – investments in our generic drug program and efforts to promote generic drug use. The benefits of these initiatives are significant to the FDA’s modernization and efficiency. They’ll help advance a robust generic drug market that drives product competition and lowers drug prices.

Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Follow Commissioner Gottlieb on Twitter @SGottliebFDA

FDA Proposes Process Modernization to Support New Drug Development

By: Janet Woodcock, M.D.

The staff of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) always tries to utilize cutting-edge science and up-to-date process management, befitting our stature as the global “gold standard” in drug regulation. Maintaining that standard requires us to keep up with evolving technology and the latest scientific, medical and regulatory advances. Current factors impacting drug development include the genomic revolution, the rise of targeted therapy, the availability of digital health data, the focus on patient involvement, complex drug-device combinations, globalization of drug development and harmonization of international standards. To be successful drug regulators, we reach well beyond the borders of the FDA. We collaborate with a wide variety of medical and scientific organizations such as those in biomedical research, the pharmaceutical industry, academia, global organizations and other regulatory agencies. Importantly, these collaborations also extend to patients and their caregivers and advocacy groups. All these interactions are critical to successful drug regulation.

Janet Woodcock

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

I have recently proposed changes to CDER’s new drug regulatory program. These changes are intended to free up resources so that our scientists and physicians have more time to focus on drug development, particularly for unmet medical needs, and on the multiple collaborations needed to make sure candidate drugs are developed and assessed properly, with appropriate input from external scientists, expert physicians and patient communities. The proposals include regulatory and review process changes, as well as organizational restructuring. We also intend to strengthen the support structures, including personnel and Information Technology (IT), that underpin the regulatory process.

As always, our goals are to expand access to safe and effective new drug therapies, conduct efficient and comprehensive safety surveillance, and ensure that accurate information about those drugs is available.

Here are some highlights of our proposal:

  • Recruiting the best and brightest individuals from many disciplines – Scientific leadership is vital for our ongoing success. After hiring talented scientists, we need to develop long-term career paths for them so they can become our next generation of seasoned leaders. Our recruitment efforts, strengthened by hiring incentives and other provisions in a new law called the 21st Century Cures Act, will help provide the staffing necessary for continued success in supporting the development and approval of innovative new therapies that meet previously unmet medical needs.
  • Enhancing our focus on multidisciplinary teams – Setting standards for approval and assessing innovative new drugs requires large and well-coordinated teams of highly trained professionals with many different types of expertise. CDER’s Office of New Drugs (OND) has a staff of more than 1,000 individuals who work together in many ways. New drug development and approval also requires coordination across many offices within CDER, including the Office of Translational Sciences (OTS), the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (OSE) and the Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ). A central component of our proposed changes involves stronger integration of our talented staff so they can better work together – within and across offices, a concept we refer to as “integrated assessment.” Previously, CDER reviewers would seek consults from specialists in other scientific disciplines (as issues were identified in the course of review). For greater collaboration, a cross-disciplinary team will be assigned to work on a new drug application at the outset.
  • Prioritizing operational excellence – Staff throughout CDER face a staggering pace of work, much of which involves attention to detailed administrative procedures. Our proposal would centralize project management functions within OND. CDER currently has 19 separate review divisions that regulate drugs. Over time, many divisions have developed procedures specific to their areas of review. We are proposing a single and consistent process: One organization with one process. Our aim is to enable our scientific and clinical experts to focus on what they know best – science and medicine – and our regulatory experts to manage the many processes we conduct.
  • Improving knowledge management – The information we process in our work is vast and diverse. Knowledge management is essential to control the data we receive from outside sources as well as what we generate from within the FDA. We plan to enhance our IT capabilities and access to information to better enable the storage and management of the collected experience of our scientific review staff. Accurate historic information from many past drug reviews is essential to informing current and future reviews – and to assure consistent regulatory decision-making. We want to make it easy for staff to find and use scientific and regulatory data, information and precedents. We’re also proposing changes that will increase the number of offices that oversee our review divisions from five to nine – and we’re envisioning 30 review divisions within those offices – up from our current 19. In addition to enabling greater efficiency, these envisioned changes will help us to better understand the diseases intended to be treated by the drugs we evaluate for approval – another way we aim to enhance our knowledge management.
  • Emphasizing the importance of safety across a drug’s lifecycle – Safety remains a key component of our new plans. We will work to establish a unified post-market safety surveillance framework to monitor the benefits and risks of drugs across their lifecycles, both before and after approval.
  •  Incorporating the patient voice – Patients are the FDA’s most important stakeholder and our vision includes incorporating the patient voice in modern patient-focused drug development. In fact, all the elements in our proposal have a common thread: they ultimately serve to improve health for patients.

Last year, CDER approved 46 novel drugs, 100% of which were reviewed on time – fulfilling our commitments under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). Our system is effective, but we can always improve. Our new plan is designed to help us generate efficiencies so we can build stronger external collaboration capabilities and enhanced support for the scientific, clinical and technological innovation necessary for new drug therapies.

This proposal to modernize our new drug review processes will help us maintain and advance our global leadership, and better support our deeply committed staff. Both science and technology are changing at a blistering pace, and we need to keep up. Patients depend on the FDA to do what is necessary to provide access to safe and effective drug therapies. They take FDA-approved drugs because they trust us. While we have many steps to go before we can realize these changes, we feel confident that they will reinforce that trust and align us for ongoing success.

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

Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on proposed modernization of FDA’s drug review office

 

 

New CDER Report Highlights Ongoing Drug Safety Initiatives and Priorities

By: Janet Woodcock, M.D.

At FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), drug safety is among our highest priorities. Before we approve a drug, we make every effort to ensure its benefits outweigh its risks. After approval, we keep a careful watch for new safety issues that can arise once new therapies are prescribed for a broad population of patients.

Janet WoodcockIt’s a complex and ever-changing responsibility. As drug therapies become increasingly advanced, so too must our methods to prevent and/or manage risks related to their use. These risks come in many forms – including adverse events (side effects), problems arising from inappropriate or incorrect use, manufacturing issues related to sophisticated new production techniques, criminal tampering or counterfeiting, and the devastating effects of addiction, like that of the opioid epidemic. And, as innovative study methods provide new information, new safety issues can emerge for drugs that have been on the market and widely used for decades. For these reasons, we focus our efforts both on newly approved drug therapies and those already on the market.

Our annual report, Drug Safety Priorities 2017, provides updates on our ongoing initiatives, discusses new work, and highlights last year’s safety-related milestones and achievements.

Protecting the American public from risks associated with medications requires teamwork from many scientific and medical specialists at FDA working together to inform decisive regulatory action. Key efforts include the Safe Use Initiative to reduce preventable harm from medications; the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), which collects vast amounts of data about side effects and medication errors from medical products reported by patients, health care professionals, and manufacturers; and the Sentinel System, our state-of-the-art electronic drug safety surveillance system. We also collaborate with health care professionals, academia, researchers, and other health and science agencies in studying the effects of medications before and after approval to help ensure that the benefits of these therapies outweigh their risks.

Our report describes many ways CDER worked in 2017 to enhance drug safety for the American public. These include:

  • Safety surveillance and oversight of marketed drug products: In 2017, CDER’s Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (OSE) conducted 7,446 safety reviews. Of those, 2,860 were initiated as a result of ongoing OSE surveillance.
  • The importance of real-world evidence to help advance drug safety science: Although randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for medical and scientific evidence needed to support FDA drug product approval decisions, they are often conducted in specialized and controlled research settings and are time-consuming and costly. And at the end of a drug development program, RCTs can leave critical questions unanswered, particularly about the effects or impacts of a drug after it gets into the “real world,” and is used by hundreds of thousands of people over an extended period. CDER safety scientists are using powerful new scientific computing and data storage technologies to enhance our capabilities of gaining valuable information from “real world evidence.”
  • New tools and new approaches for fighting our Nation’s opioid crisis: Our report emphasizes that in 2016, an estimated 11.5 million people misused prescription opioids — and that each day of that year, an estimated 116 people died from an opioid-related overdose. FDA actions taken in 2017 in response to the opioid epidemic align with our current four key priorities in this area: 1) decreasing exposure and preventing new addiction, 2) safely treating those with opioid addiction, 3) developing safe and effective novel alternative therapies to opioids, and, 4) improving enforcement of safety measures and assessing benefit-risk ratios.
  • Safety oversight for generic drugs: The report explains how we evaluate generic drugs to ensure they meet quality standards and deliver the necessary amount of active ingredient, and how we monitor generic drug use in the marketplace to flag early safety concerns. CDER’s Clinical Safety Surveillance Staff (CSSS) is addressing post-marketing safety concerns related to complex generic drug-device combination products. In 2017 a generic drug had two intravenous (IV) bag ports (rather than a single IV bag port used by the brand name drug). This difference raised concerns for potential confusion, risk of incompatibility issues, and potential adverse events in patients. The CSSS’s collaboration activities led to the development of a new process for managing review of similar IV bags with different port configurations.
  • Efforts to reduce preventable harm from medications: More than a million Americans are injured or killed each year due to preventable medication errors. FDA’s Safe Use Initiative works to reduce preventable medication-related errors, such as medicines dispensed in error, medicines taken for too long or not long enough, or medicines inappropriately mixed with other medicines or with foods that can increase risks of side effects. Among many other efforts, our work through the Safe Use Initiative in 2017 included making recommendations to enhance the safety of fluoroquinolone antibiotics, identifying “high-risk” prescribers (those who write prescriptions for high doses or co-prescribe with medications which increase the risk of adverse events) and educating them about safer prescribing practices, and identifying which diabetic patients may be at high risk of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).
  • Compounded drugs – continuing regulatory and oversight efforts: FDA has taken many steps to strengthen safety measures for compounded medications since the 2012 outbreak of fungal meningitis associated with contaminated compounded drugs. Among other actions, the agency conducted 140 inspections, sent 55 warning letters, and issued 40 recalls related to compounding.
  • Diverse strategies, tools, and services for communicating drug safety: Effectively communicating what we do is an essential component of our work to protect the public. In 2017, we responded to 57,094 inquiries from the public (39,883 by phone, 16,269 by e-mail, and 942 via written letters), each an opportunity to help a patient ensure they are safely using their medication. Our Drug Safety Podcasts reached an estimated 350,000 listeners each week. These and many other communication efforts, such as our Drug Safety Communications that alert consumers and health care professionals about new or potential safety issues, serve to keep the public informed of important drug safety concerns that may impact them.

The report also details a variety of ways we keep pace with the rapid evolution of technology. For instance, we are evaluating the use of technologies, such as machine learning methods and other advanced computation techniques, to help our analytics systems contribute to more predictive safety and risk data. We are also exploring ways to leverage mobile apps, social media, and electronic prescribing data while ensuring patient privacy. As we pursue a wide-ranging safety agenda, CDER Drug Safety Priorities 2017 offers a deeper dive into FDA’s drug safety research, surveillance, and regulatory activities. We hope this report serves to demonstrate CDER’s ongoing commitment to protect the American public.

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

2017 Was Another Record-Setting Year for Generic Drugs

By: Kathleen “Cook” Uhl, M.D.

In 2017, FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research’s generic drug program marked several major accomplishments on behalf of the American people.

Kathleen "Cook" UhlOur Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) marked another record-setting year for generic approvals at FDA with 1,027 new generic drugs, 214 more than our previous record of 813 set in 2016. Of those, 843 were full approvals and 184 were “tentative” approvals, that is, applications that are ready for approval from a scientific perspective, but cannot be fully approved due to patents or exclusivities on the brand-name drug.

Also in 2017, we helped establish the first reauthorization of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (known as GDUFA II)  ̶  an important law that Congress passed to authorize the continued collection of user fees from generic drug manufacturers. GDUFA I, enacted in 2012, allowed OGD to hire additional staff, so that from 2012 to 2017 FDA had additional resources to approve the record numbers of generic drug applications. Reauthorization is helping facilitate continued advances in generic drugs, including complex drug products – such as some inhaled or injectable products.

FDA-approved generic drugs account for 89% of the prescriptions dispensed in the United States. Over the last decade, these FDA-approved generic drugs have saved consumers more than $1.67 trillion. While it’s exciting to see the number of approvals continue to rise year after year, and to exceed 1,000 annual approval actions for the first time, our attention remains focused on public health by ensuring the effectiveness and quality of approved generic drugs.

2017 Generic Drug ApprovalsIn 2017, we approved 80 “first generic” drugs. These are the first generic alternatives to a brand-name product. First generic drugs spur cost-saving competition that helps lower prescription drug costs. Lowering the cost of drugs is a public health priority, so FDA expedites the review of first generic applications to open the market to generic competition. In addition, multiple generic versions of the same drug lead to more competition, resulting in even more cost savings. In 2017, we updated our policy to prioritize the review of generic applications up to the third generic approval of a drug, helping to maximize savings for the public.

Another FDA initiative designed to foster competition focuses on complex drugs. OGD’s regulatory science work and guidances helped advance scientific knowledge about generic drugs to assist industry. OGD’s efforts provide the critical information needed to develop and meet our standards for equivalence to the brand-name drug. But traditional methods and standards for assessing generic drugs may not apply to more complex generics. Health care professionals use complex drugs to treat a wide range of diseases, from hormone replacement therapy in post-menopausal women to type II diabetes. In 2017, OGD provided guidance to industry on developing products from tiotropium bromide inhalation powder (the generic of Spiriva Handihaler), used to treat COPD, to EpiPen (epinephrine) alternative Adrenaclick, used for emergency treatment of anaphylaxis.

It’s important to note that even as FDA continues to meet the GDUFA performance goals, there will be occasional variations in generic drug approvals. Approval numbers can be impacted by a number of external factors, including the number of ANDAs submitted for review over a given time period and changes in legal requirements that come into effect that generic applicants must address to meet the standards for approval.

FDA’s continued work under GDUFA II will help ensure that safe and effective generic versions of brand-name drugs continue to be made available by giving industry clear guidelines on the science behind developing a quality generic drug and clearly identifying what is needed in an application to make it approvable.

The 2017 annual report provides more details on how OGD’s work benefits public health. We look forward to continuing our work with industry, the research community, physicians, health care providers, lawmakers, and other stakeholders to make generic drugs available for the benefit of the American public.

Kathleen “Cook” Uhl, M.D., is FDA’s Director, Office of Generic Drugs in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Generic Drug User Fees Reauthorization: A Victory for Public Health

By: Kathleen Uhl, M.D., and Michael Kopcha, Ph.D., R.Ph. 

We marked an important milestone in the U.S. generic drug program on Oct. 1, 2017 – the start of the first reauthorization of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA). These fees from industry provide FDA with vital funding that advances the Agency’s regulatory work to review and approve applications for generic drugs.

Kathleen "Cook" Uhl

Kathleen Uhl, M.D., is Director, Office of Generic Drugs at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

This wasn’t just a milestone for FDA – it was a victory for public health. Increasing consumer access to safe, high-quality, and affordable generic drugs is a top priority at FDA. Generic drugs often cost a fraction of the price of the brand-name version and almost 9 out of 10 prescriptions are filled using generic drugs. During the past decade, generic medicines have saved the American health care system almost $1.7 trillion.

While FDA does not have a direct role in establishing drug pricing, when more than one generic version of a drug is approved, it spurs competition and facilitates affordable options for consumers.

Congress first approved the collection of user fees from industry to help fund FDA’s generic drug program in 2012 – for a five year period.  Having another source of funding beyond our traditional budget appropriations from Congress for an extended period of time allowed us to hire additional staff and to better allocate our review activities. As a result, FDA approved record numbers of generic drug applications.

In fact, 25 percent of all generic drugs currently approved were approved during the first five years of GDUFA. In the last two years of GDUFA, the FDA approved more generic drugs each year than in any other year in the history of the generic drug program. The reauthorization of GDUFA will help us build on this success.

Michael Kopcha

Michael Kopcha, Ph.D., R.Ph., is Director, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

User fees support the dedicated FDA staff who review generic drug applications and inspect the facilities that make generic drugs. User fees provide funds for important IT infrastructure that helps FDA manage its increasing workload, improves efficiency, and increases transparency. They also fund important regulatory research that helps clarify and improve the scientific and clinical understanding that serves as the foundation for generic drug product assessment.

The goals and commitments we agreed to in the reauthorization of GDUFA support public health. We now have shorter review goals available for applications that are public health priorities. In addition, these goals promote two major objectives: reducing the time it takes to approve generic drug applications and increasing the number of approved generic drugs. We have increased communication with industry to help ensure that the Agency receives complete, high-quality, and scientifically sound applications. Another new feature is a flexible user fee structure to address the needs of small businesses. This encourages competition that in turn can result in lower drug prices for consumers.

Developing the generic version of complex drug products – such as inhaled medicines or some types of injectable medicines – has unique challenges. FDA will meet earlier and more frequently with an applicant to anticipate the challenges that might arise in the development of these products.

Our experience in GDUFA allowed us to improve review processes and implement best practices for communicating with industry and consumers. The reauthorization of GDUFA builds on the successes during the first five years. We look forward to the next five years of helping the American public gain even greater access to affordable, high-quality generic drugs.

Please visit fda.gov/genericdrugs for more information on FDA’s generic drug program and to track progress on the reauthorized GDUFA.

Kathleen Uhl, M.D., is Director, Office of Generic Drugs at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 

Michael Kopcha, Ph.D., R.Ph., is Director, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality at FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Reducing the Hurdles for Complex Generic Drug Development

By: Scott Gottlieb, M.D.

Earlier this year, I announced our Drug Competition Action Plan to advance new policies aimed at bringing more competition to the drug market. My goal was to improve access consumers have to the medicines that they need. I consider access to medicine a matter of public health. If consumers are priced out of the drugs they need, that’s a public health concern that FDA should address, within the scope of its mandate and authorities.

Dr. Scott GottliebWhile FDA doesn’t control drug pricing, our policies do affect competition in the market. This is the nexus of our current efforts on drug pricing.

Our plan has a number of different domains. Among them is a compilation of efforts to improve the efficiency of the generic drug approval process; and another is a group of policies aimed at closing loopholes that allow branded drug companies to game our rules in ways that forestall the generic competition that Congress intended. One important group of policies is aimed at making it easier to bring generic competition to a category of branded drugs known as complex drugs. Today we’re announcing a major new set of policies to advance these goals.

Complex drugs comprise high cost medicines like metered dose inhalers used to treat asthma, as well as some costly injectable drugs. These medicines generally have at least one feature that makes them harder to “genericize” under our traditional approaches. As a consequence, these drugs can face less competition. In some cases, costly, branded drugs that are complex drugs have lost their exclusivity, but are subject to no generic competition.

The new policies we’re announcing today are aimed at ensuring that we provide as much scientific and regulatory clarity as possible with respect to complex generic drugs. This focus is critical because, first and foremost, these drug products provide important therapies to patients. They are also becoming increasingly significant to the economic health of the generic drug industry. Being able to “genericize” a complex drug can be a high-value opportunity for a generic drug maker that helps underwrite the costs of other generic applications. In other words, because brand-name versions of complex drug products are often higher-priced than many other brand name drugs, any steps we can take to encourage the development of generic competitors to complex drugs will have an outsized impact on access, and prices.

When considering the scope of complex drugs, people often first think of drug products where the active ingredient itself is complex. Glatiramer acetate injection, a drug used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis, is a good example. However, the terms “complex drug product” and “complex generic drug” are used to refer to a much larger and diverse group of drug products. In addition to drug products with complex active ingredients, or sites of action, complex drug products also include complex drug-device combination products.

Together, this diverse collection of drug products has one or more elements that are more complex than an average drug product. This complexity, in turn, means that the scientific and regulatory pathways for approval of generic versions of these drug products are not as well traveled by generic drug developers. In some cases, use of another established regulatory pathway may be appropriate to streamline development.

We’re undertaking a number of efforts to ensure that the pathways for approval for generic versions of complex drug products are as efficient as possible, including a number of new steps that I’m announcing today and others that we’ll be working on in the coming months.

We know that our regulatory requirements impact both the direct and indirect costs of drug development. These include costs associated with the time it takes to develop a drug and gain its regulatory approval, as well as those associated with the research and development of experimental products that ultimately do not make it to market.

Manufacturers of complex generic drugs face a number of challenges in developing their products and demonstrating that their products meet the approval requirements for generic drug applications (abbreviated new drug applications or ANDAs), including establishing that they are bioequivalent to and have the same active ingredient as the brand-name drug.

Bioequivalence for complex generic drugs can be challenging with complex drug products that can’t be easily measured in the blood, or when the drug’s therapeutic effect is delivered locally to a particular organ, rather than systemically, through the bloodstream.  In other instances, showing active ingredient sameness can be challenging when the drug product contains an active mixture of components and not a single active molecule.

These challenges – and resulting regulatory uncertainties – may deter generic manufacturers from beginning development. It can mean these ANDAs undergo more review cycles than other generic drugs. These hurdles, in turn, may result in limited competition and higher prices.

We recognize these problems and are taking a number of new steps to support the development of high quality ANDAs for complex generic drugs.

First, FDA is issuing a draft guidance to assist ANDA applicants and prospective ANDA applicants in creating and submitting pre-ANDA meeting requests, including meeting package materials, so FDA can give better advice to sponsors looking to develop complex generic drugs.

The guidance provides information on requesting and conducting product development meetings, pre-submission meetings, and mid-review cycle meetings with FDA. These meetings will allow for enhanced communication between generic drug applicants and FDA early in the generic drug development process, allowing for more efficient generic drug development, review, and approval pathways. We’ve found from analyzing our new drug program, that early and better meetings between FDA and sponsors can improve development timelines. We want to bring these same types of opportunities to developers of complex generics.

Second, we’re issuing a draft guidance  to help applicants determine when submission of ANDAs for certain complex products, known as peptides, would be appropriate. Peptides are compounds made up of 40 or fewer amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. There are a number of branded medicines that are peptides, where exclusivity has lapsed, but these drugs face little or no competition. This new guidance applies to ANDAs for certain specific synthetic peptides, namely, glucagon, liraglutide, nesiritide, teriparatide, and teduglutide, that reference brand-name versions of these peptides manufactured using recombinant DNA technology.

This guidance represents how advances in regulatory science — when coupled with careful policy considerations — can enable generic drug development that was previously infeasible.

In this case, advances in technology for peptide synthesis and characterization allow an ANDA applicant for one of these products to demonstrate that its product meets the “sameness” requirements for generic drug approval. The recommendations in the new guidance will help ensure that the risk of an immune response from the generic due to differences in impurities will not differ from that of the reference drug.

We’re doing all of this without sacrificing the scientific rigor of the process one bit. A central aspect of our approach, and our efforts to spur innovation and generic competition, is focused on adopting more rigorous and sophisticated science, including sophisticated quantitative methods and computational modeling, in drug development, evaluation, and review.

We’ll soon release other important policies aimed at spurring competition to complex drugs. But we know that better guidance isn’t the only answer. Some drugs lack generic competition because they cannot be measured through traditional in vivo bioequivalence methods and there’s no efficient and convincing bioequivalence test method available.

In these instances, an applicant needs to conduct more extensive clinical endpoint testing to show bioequivalence of a generic drug to a brand-name drug. This can be burdensome and discourage generic product development. A further barrier to generic competition for certain complex drug products is the lack of established methods for showing the sameness of the active ingredient of a proposed generic drug to a brand-name drug for certain complex drugs.

Over the next year, FDA’s generic drug regulatory science program will work to identify gaps in the science and develop more tools, methods, and efficient alternatives to clinical endpoint testing, where feasible. To help with this task, we’re holding a series of important scientific workshops, beginning today, that will identify opportunities for complex generic drug development, discuss quantitative modeling approaches and principles and aid product-specific guidance development. The workshops will also help in the development of new analytical tools that will help overcome the unique development and regulatory challenges for demonstrating active ingredient sameness in complex products. We intend for these efforts to speed product development, reduce development costs, and improve access to these products.

Our announcements today are part of a broader effort by the administration to address the high and rising cost of drugs and in the coming months, we’ll advance other policies aimed at enabling generic competition to complex drugs. Some of these will be product specific guidance documents; others will deal with more crosscutting aspects of our process. And we’ll advance more new policies to help bring more competition to other aspects of the drug market. We’re just getting started. Drug access is a matter of public health concern. We know that enabling more generic competition, where Congress intended, helps reduce prices, enable more access, and improve public health.

Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Follow Commissioner Gottlieb on Twitter @SGottliebFDA

FDA’s plan to engage the public in the agency’s new effort to strengthen and modernize FDA’s regulatory framework

By: Anna Abram

Anna AbramWe’re at a moment of extraordinary opportunity to improve the public health. New innovations are giving us fundamentally better ways to address disease. Some of the same technology is providing consumers with a broader selection of foods that can improve peoples’ diets, and products that can expand their choices. At the same time, we also face a lot of new challenges. The steps FDA takes to advance these opportunities, and address uncertainties, will directly impact the lives of families. As part of our commitment to protect and promote the public health, we’re undertaking a comprehensive review of our regulations. Our aim is to ensure that our policies and regulations keep pace with the challenges we face in protecting consumers, and the opportunities we have to improve their lives. As in all our actions, science will remain FDA’s North Star when it comes to our role in devising regulatory policy.

Over the past few months, FDA has announced a number of broad policy efforts to address public health opportunities in areas such as regenerative medicine, tobacco products, and access to affordable medicines. As with everything that we do, this work is rooted in our mission to protect and promote the public health, foster safe and effective innovation that can benefit patients, adopt regulatory approaches that enable the efficient development of new innovations, and provide for a safe, healthy and nutritious food supply. For example, we’re looking at places where FDA’s rules concerning new drugs are being used in ways that may create obstacles to the timely entry of generic competition. We want to make sure our policies aren’t being misused in ways that thwart the competition that Congress intended when it created the modern generic drug framework. We know that vigorous generic competition can help benefit patients by lowering drug costs, which improves access to medicines. It’s one example of where a closer analysis of our existing policies can help make sure our regulations are having their intended purpose.

As part of my commitment to help oversee the development and implementation of key policy issues, and to help advance these broader policy efforts, I’ve been working closely with FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., and other senior agency colleagues, to explore ways to modernize our regulations in a manner that will benefit all Americans. To achieve this, we’re not only looking at what new regulations or policies we need in order to be most effective in fulfilling our public health responsibilities. We’re also taking a closer look to see if we need to revise, update, and in some cases eliminate existing regulations to help us better keep pace with scientific advancement and the people that we serve. We need policies that are as modern as the products that we’re being asked to evaluate, and a regulatory framework that uses efficient tools to achieve our vital consumer protection role.

This comprehensive review is a large undertaking given the breadth of our public health mission and the fact that FDA-regulated products account for about 20 cents of every dollar consumers spend each year. It involves the support of FDA’s senior leaders and many of our staff. FDA has long played a vital role in protecting and promoting public health, and since its founding in 1906, the scope and charge of the agency’s work has grown to include many products that Americans rely on every day. Over time, the agency has also assumed an increasingly global footprint. Along the way, we’ve taken many steps to modernize our policies and practices and evaluate our portfolio of regulations to make sure they’re keeping pace with our challenges. But our 100-plus-year history lends itself to a closer examination of the regulations that have guided our work. Some have been in place for decades, and may not reflect the most up-to-date approach to achieving our public health mission. We have a lot of ground to cover. Today, FDA’s regulations comprise more than 4,000 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations. Some regulations may not adequately reflect advances in science, technology or changes in industry practice. Others may be geared toward products and practices that have largely ceased to exist. In a world of increasing challenges and opportunities, we need to be risk-based in everything we do in order to make sure we’re using our resources efficiently. Our goal is to have regulations that reflect modern risks and opportunities, and use the full scope of our authorities to achieve our consumer protection mission.

As part of this process we’re asking ourselves and others to think about how current regulations could be reshaped to achieve our public health objectives through more efficient approaches. We are opening a number of public dockets to solicit feedback from patients, consumers, health providers, caregivers, industry, health groups, academia, as well as state, local and tribal governments, and public health partners. We’re also exploring other opportunities to solicit input from stakeholders on this effort. We believe that engaging both internal and external stakeholders are critical to focusing our attention on where our policies might need updating; to ensure FDA’s work maximizes our public health purpose.

Our approach also aligns our efforts with the Administration-wide goal for federal regulatory reform to improve how government serves the American people. At FDA we take seriously our responsibility to protect and promote the public health. This will be our guiding principle. We’ll use this opportunity to make sure our regulations reflect the new benefits that science and technology offer to advance opportunities for patients to improve their lives, and to strengthen our mandate to protect consumers. We look forward to your input and will continue to communicate our plans as we move forward on this endeavor.

Anna Abram is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation and Analysis

For more information on how to provide input on FDA’s regulations, please visit:

FDA Working to Lift Barriers to Generic Drug Competition

By: Scott Gottlieb, M.D.

Too many patients are being priced out of the medicines they need. While FDA doesn’t have a direct role in drug pricing, we can take steps to help address this problem by facilitating increased competition in the market for prescription drugs through the approval of lower-cost, generic medicines.

Dr. Scott GottliebOver the last decade alone, competition from safe and effective generic drugs has saved the health care system about $1.67 trillion. When generics are dispensed at the pharmacy, the immediate savings to each of us are clear. We could see even greater cost savings if we helped more safe and effective generic drugs get to market sooner, after patent and statutory exclusivity periods have lapsed, by addressing some of the scientific and regulatory obstacles to generic competition across the full range of FDA-approved drugs. These barriers may delay and, in some cases, ultimately deny patient access to more affordable drugs.

That’s why we’re working on a Drug Competition Action Plan. As part of this effort, today, we’re announcing in the Federal Register our intent to hold a public meeting on July 18, 2017, to solicit input on places where FDA’s rules – including the standards and procedures related to generic drug approvals – are being used in ways that may create obstacles to generic access, instead of ensuring the vigorous competition Congress intended.

Innovation in pharmaceutical development is essential because it creates new and sometimes life-saving therapies. But access to lower-cost alternatives, once patent and exclusivity periods lapse, also is critical to the nation’s health.

We know that sometimes our regulatory rules might be “gamed” in ways that may delay generic drug approvals beyond the time frame the law intended, in order to reduce competition. We are actively looking at ways our rules are being used and, in some cases, misused.

One example of such gaming is the increasing unavailability of certain branded products for comparative testing. To perform the studies required to develop a generic alternative to a branded drug, a generic sponsor generally needs 1,500 to 3,000 doses of the originator drug. I understand that generic sponsors are willing to buy these products at fair market value; but, in some cases, branded companies may be using regulatory strategies or commercial techniques to deliberately try to block a generic company from getting access to testing samples.

This might occur, for example, when branded companies might use restrictions they place in their commercial contracts or their agreements with distributors to make it hard for intermediaries in the drug supply chain to sell the drugs to generic drug developers.

We also see problems accessing testing samples when branded products are subject to limited distribution – whether the company has voluntarily adopted limitations on distribution, or the limitations have been imposed as part of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, or REMS, a program that FDA implements to help ensure the safe use of certain drugs. I have been made aware that, in some of those cases, branded sponsors may use these limited distribution arrangements, whether or not they are REMS-related, as a basis for blocking generic firms from accessing the testing samples they need.

Besides limiting access to testing samples, some branded companies may be using the statutory default requirement to have a single shared REMS across both the branded and generic versions of a drug as a way to block generic entry. They might prolong negotiations with the generic firms over the implementation of these single shared systems, which could delay the entry of safe and effective generic drugs onto the market.

I want to take steps to address these concerns, to make sure that we are facilitating appropriate competition in circumstances where Congress intended. The forthcoming public meeting is intended to solicit public comment to inform us of circumstances where generic competition may be thwarted by these and other techniques.

As we solicit additional information, we also are going to be looking at policy and programmatic changes to address these issues. Some of these steps may be actions we can take by using our own authorities more forcefully. Other steps might involve our need to collaborate with sister agencies.

We’re also going to be looking hard at how best to coordinate with the Federal Trade Commission in identifying and publicizing practices that the FTC finds to be anti-competitive. FDA is not the FTC. It is the FTC’s responsibility to prevent anticompetitive business practices. But Congress set out certain laws that are meant to strike a careful balance between pharmaceutical innovation and access to lower cost generic products, and FDA has an important responsibility to enforce those laws in a manner that adheres to the balance struck by Congress.

We’ll be unveiling additional aspects of our larger Action Plan and providing updates, as these initial elements are implemented. I’m confident that these actions and the dedicated work of the outstanding staff in our generic drug program will help to address the issues patients are facing today when they’re priced out of buying the drugs they need. At the meeting on July 18 we want to hear from the public about ways our current rules may not be having their intended effects, and where current policies are falling short in ensuring the careful balance between new innovation and patient access.

Our goal is to broaden access to safe and effective generic drugs that can improve access to medicines and help consumers lower their health care costs. As in all of the things we do, we will steadfastly maintain FDA’s gold standard for rigorous, science-based regulation.

Over the past five years our generic drug program staff has evolved and grown remarkably, while implementing the first generic drug user fee program. The staff has demonstrated that they can rise to new challenges and they have my full support. Their hard work will serve as a strong foundation for the program as it moves forward. I want the policy framework they operate under to be as efficient, fair, and robust as the review program that they’re operating.

Scott Gottlieb, M.D., is Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Follow Commissioner Gottlieb on Twitter @SGottliebFDA

2016: A Record-setting Year for Generic Drugs

By: Kathleen “Cook” Uhl, M.D.

Over the last 10 years, generic drugs have saved the U.S. healthcare system about $1.68 trillion. I’m pleased to report that 2016 was a record-setting year for FDA’s generic drug program, a result that will help generate further cost savings for American consumers, while assuring the quality of these generic products.

Kathleen "Cook" UhlAnd the timing couldn’t be better amid concerns about rising drug prices.

Last year, FDA’s Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research generated the highest number of approvals in the history of FDA’s generic drug program – more than 800 generic drug approvals, including both full approvals and tentative approvals. (Tentative approvals are granted to applications ready for approval from a scientific perspective, but cannot be fully approved due to patents or exclusivities on the brand-name drug.) Last year’s performance surpassed 2015’s previous record of 726. Many of these approvals were for “first-time generic drugs,” meaning the introduction of a generic counterpart for a brand-name product for which there was previously no generic. That’s typically the first step towards lower drug prices because multiple generic versions of brand-name drugs drive price competition, leading to more affordable drugs.

An important factor in OGD’s record-setting performance has been the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) of 2012, a landmark legislation negotiated with the generic drug industry, which completely reshaped the generic drug program at FDA. Among other things, it authorized funds for FDA to hire additional reviewers, modernize the review of generic drug applications, expand facility inspection capabilities, advance IT infrastructure for generic application review, and perform other regulatory actions. This is the first time Congress has authorized a user fee program specifically for generic drugs. It’s a five-year program, up for renewal October 1, 2017. GDUFA I has challenged OGD to reach a variety of goals while maintaining or improving the quality of the review process.

2016 Office of Generic Drugs Annual Report CoverWith the assistance of many other offices throughout FDA, OGD is on track to meet, or has already met, all of our GDUFA commitments. In addition to increased approvals and tentative approvals, FDA improved communications processes to alert industry to deficiencies in their applications, which reduces the number of review cycles and supports faster approvals.

We also are making a significant effort to spur generic drug development. For example, GDUFA Regulatory Science priorities contribute valuable research to generic drug development. Our efforts are geared to helping the generic drug industry develop validated scientific methods for demonstrating bioequivalence and assuring therapeutic equivalence to the brand-name counterpart. We are translating the results of these scientific efforts into generic drug product development via recommendations for specific drug products, which assist the generic drug industry during product development.

These are just a few of the exciting developments for 2016. Our annual report tells the rest of the story.

Despite these developments in 2016, a lot remains to be done as we approach the end of our first-ever five-year GDUFA program. We look forward to working with industry, the research community, physicians, lawmakers, and other stakeholders to help American consumers and advance use of generic drugs in our nation’s health care system.

Kathleen “Cook” Uhl, M.D., is FDA’s Director, Office of Generic Drugs in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

2015: An Important Year for Advancing Generic Drugs at FDA

By: Kathleen “Cook” Uhl, M.D.

Generic drugs allow greater access to health care for all Americans.

At FDA’s Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 2015 was an important year. It was our first full year of operation after vastly expanding our office’s scope and structure. This change allowed for the office to have greater prominence and allowed for additional staff to handle a growing workload and enhance our ability to advance the safety and availability of generic drugs in the U.S.

Kathleen "Cook" UhlConsider this: In 2014, generics saved the U.S. health system an estimated $254 billion – and FDA continues to work hard to advance the use of generic drugs to help improve public health.

Our increased capacity and expansion came at a critical time. In 2012, a new law called the Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA) authorized additional funds for FDA for the review of generic drug applications, inspection of facilities and other regulatory actions. But with those additional funds came an FDA commitment to reach a variety of goals. These goals were articulated in a document that accompanied the GDUFA legislation, which was negotiated between FDA and industry and enacted by Congress. The additional funds help FDA efficiently handle thousands of applications for new generic products and reduce the time needed to review generic medications for approval.

We’re on track for meeting all of those goals. Today, to help the public understand our progress, OGD released our first annual report. It’s filled with detailed accounts of our work, which seeks to improve the generic drug program with more efficient reviews of applications, and by developing the science needed to help the generic drug industry demonstrate that their products are as safe and effective as their brand-name counterparts.

Among the highlights, the report notes that 2015 marked the highest number of generic drug approvals and tentative approvals ever awarded by FDA – more than 700 in all. Last year, in December, we granted the highest number of approvals and tentative approvals in a single month (99) since the generic drug program began.

Another major commitment of GDUFA was to take a first action, by 2017, on 90 percent of the “backlog,” those applications pending prior to GDUFA as of October 1, 2012. We had 2,866 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) and 1,873 prior approval supplements (PASs), but by the end of 2015, we completed first actions on 84% of ANDAs and 88% of PASs – already close to the 90% goals set for 2017! We also approved 90 “first generics,” meaning that in 2015 we added a new cost-saving generic alternative for 90 brand name drugs.

Despite our progress, we have a lot more work to do. But we don’t expect to do it entirely on our own. Achieving goals that work for the public requires input from the public, including industry, the research community, lawmakers and other stakeholders.

As part of our effort to align with stakeholders’ visions, we’re holding a public meeting on May 20 to solicit valuable feedback on our regulatory science initiatives and help us chart directions forward. We invite all to attend and to contribute by providing your thoughts and ideas to our public docket.

We encourage you to read our annual report and to participate in our annual meeting. With our ongoing efforts and strong public input, we are confident that 2016 and beyond will be as successful as 2015.

Kathleen “Cook” Uhl, M.D., is FDA’s Director, Office of Generic Drugs in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research