Advancing Tobacco Regulation to Protect Children and Families: Updates and New Initiatives from the FDA on the Anniversary of the Tobacco Control Act and FDA’s Comprehensive Plan for Nicotine

By: Scott Gottlieb, M.D., and Mitch Zeller, J.D.

This summer marks nine years since the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) was signed into law, and one year since we announced the FDA’s Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation. This comprehensive plan places nicotine, and the issue of addiction, at the center of the agency’s tobacco regulation efforts. The multi-year roadmap provides a framework for regulating nicotine and tobacco and is designed to reframe the conversation around nicotine and harm reduction.

A principal reason people continue to smoke cigarettes — despite the dangers — is nicotine. Our plan recognizes that nicotine isn’t directly responsible for the morbidity and mortality from tobacco, but creates and sustains addiction to cigarettes. It’s the delivery mechanism for nicotine that’s more directly linked to the product’s dangers. That’s why our plan focuses on minimizing addiction to the most harmful products while encouraging innovation in those products that could provide adult smokers access to nicotine without the harmful consequences of combustion and cigarettes.

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

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

Over the past year, we’ve taken important steps toward fully implementing this plan as part of our overarching goal: a world where cigarettes can no longer create or sustain addiction, and where adults who still seek nicotine could get it from potentially less harmful sources. In implementing this comprehensive plan, we’ve already issued three important advance notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPRMs) that have the potential to reframe the tobacco landscape. These ANPRMs focus on:

  • The potential development of a product standard to lower nicotine in cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels – which could make it harder for future generations to become addicted in the first place and could allow more currently addicted smokers to quit more easily or switch to potentially less harmful products. Given their combination of toxicity, addictiveness, prevalence and effect on non-users, it’s clear that to maximize the possible public health benefits of our regulatory tools granted to us under the Tobacco Control Act, we must focus our efforts on the death and disease caused by addiction to combustible cigarettes. We believe this pivotal public health step has the potential to dramatically reduce smoking rates and save millions of lives;
  • The role that flavors – including menthol – play in initiation, use and cessation of tobacco products. Input on these issues will assist in the consideration of the most impactful regulatory options the FDA could pursue to achieve the greatest public health benefit. We’re proceeding in a science-based fashion, building a strong administrative record by securing more information about the potential positives and negatives of flavors in both youth initiation and in getting adult smokers to quit or transition to potentially less harmful products; and,
  • The patterns of use and resulting public health impacts from what are often referred to as “premium” cigars to inform the agency’s regulatory policies.

The public comment periods for all three ANPRMs, which were extended by 30 additional days to allow more time for submissions, have now closed. We are beginning the process of reviewing those comments.

Mitch Zeller, J.D., Director of FDA's Center for Tobacco Products

Mitchell Zeller, J.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products

At the same time, the FDA is also pursuing additional new policies as part of our comprehensive plan as well as our ongoing commitment to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our tobacco regulatory programs.

Part of these efforts are aimed at making the pathway for developing nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products more efficient to promote the development of novel NRT products. The agency’s efforts to re-evaluate and modernize its approach to the development and regulation of NRT products is aimed at opening up new pathways for the development of improved products, regulated as new drugs, that demonstrate that they are safe and effective for the purpose of helping smokers quit.

Many of our new efforts, as part of our comprehensive plan, are aimed at using our existing authorities under the TCA to minimize addiction to the most harmful products, principally cigarettes, while encouraging innovation in new products that may offer adults less harmful forms of nicotine delivery.

A key part of achieving these goals is issuing foundational rules and guidances to help industry better understand what is needed to submit product applications. At the same time, we are pursuing new efforts to improve the transparency and efficiency of the premarket review process.

These important foundational steps are a key element of our efforts to advance the pre-market review of tobacco products. This review is one of the most important responsibilities we have. It’s how we can assess new products and their potential impact on the public health. This is our opportunity to determine how a product may positively or negatively affect both non-users and current users. So, it’s crucial that we continually improve in this area and have a transparent and efficient process.

To address these goals, we’re committing to a number of steps, some new, to respond to stakeholders and to make the regulatory process more efficient, predictable, and transparent for industry, while also advancing the agency’s public health mission. Establishing a rigorous, predictable, science-based framework for the premarket review of tobacco products is a key element of our program.

Among the steps that we are pursuing to better achieve these goals:

  • Proposing foundational rules: We all need to be on the same page regarding the basic “rules of the road,” especially when it comes to what’s expected in premarket applications. We’re working to propose new rules to help industry on topics including Substantial Equivalence, Premarket Tobacco Applications, Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications, and Tobacco Product Manufacturing Practices. We will begin publishing these foundational proposed rules in the coming months. They will lay out a transparent, modern, and science-based framework for manufacturing practices and the development of tobacco product applications that meet the legal requirements.
  • Holding a public meeting on premarket review: Within the next few months, the FDA will hold a public meeting on the premarket application and review process. The goal of the meeting is to solicit comments on our processes and provide a dedicated venue for specific suggestions on how to further improve them. Potential topics for discussion include: how to achieve greater efficiencies in review, while continuing to protect public health; how to review products that are rendered “new” due to changes made to comply with a product standard; and, how to facilitate greater company consultation with the FDA prior to submitting applications.
  • Exploring opportunities for premarket review efficiencies through rulemaking and guidance and new administrative steps to modernize and improve the review process: The FDA is taking additional steps to pursue the shared interest with industry of increased flexibility and efficiencies within the application review process. If carefully developed, rulemaking and guidance efforts in this area could help ensure that our public health standards for premarket review are met while mutually benefiting both the industry and the FDA. For example, an opportunity may exist to allow for faster and cheaper development of products that will benefit public health. In the months ahead, the FDA intends to explore what improvements can be made along these lines within our existing legal authorities. We also plan to advance a comprehensive suite of improvements to the review process, as part of a Regulatory Modernization, to make our program more efficient, transparent, predictable, and efficient. We will unveil these programmatic reforms in advance of our upcoming public meeting.

These programmatic and process improvements are aimed at solidifying the FDA’s regulatory pathways and improving its predictability and transparency. As the FDA advances its regulatory approach to these important public health considerations, it’s critical that we keep in mind a bedrock principle: No kids should be using any tobacco or nicotine-containing products, including e-cigarettes.

Protecting our nation’s youth from the dangers of tobacco products is among the most important responsibilities of the FDA. That is why we recently launched our Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan.

We look at the marketplace for tobacco products today and see increasing concern from parents, educators, and health professionals about the alarming youth use of tobacco products like JUUL and other e-cigarettes. Our mission at the FDA is to protect the public’s health, and we want to assure the public we’re using all of our tools and authorities to quickly tackle this public health threat. We will not allow our efforts to give manufacturers time to file premarket applications with FDA — that are informed by the foundational rules and guidance that we’re now advancing — to become a back door for allowing products with high levels of nicotine to cause a new generation of kids to get addicted to nicotine and hooked on tobacco products.

Our Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan reflects our commitment to address these risks. Congress gave us many powerful authorities, including enforcement, product standards, premarket review, sales and promotion restrictions, and public education. We’ll use every tool available to protect our nation’s kids.

We’ve already announced several vigorous enforcement actions and education efforts aimed at addressing youth use of nicotine, and e-cigarettes in particular. More such actions are imminent. Among the steps we’ve already taken are: sending warning letters to companies for selling e-liquids resembling juice boxes, candies and cookies; sending warning letters to retailers for selling JUUL e-cigarettes to underage youth; working with eBay to remove Internet listings for JUUL, and with other e-cigarette manufacturers to help the FDA better understand the youth appeal of these products; and, creating the  first e-cigarette public education ad, with a full-scale advertising campaign to begin this fall.

These are important first steps. But we still need to do more to address use of tobacco products by kids. That’s why we’re working to quickly advance the following three new initiatives:

  • Expediting action on flavors: The issue of flavors, including flavored e-cigarettes and e-liquids, is at the forefront of any discussion of youth use. However, some flavored tobacco products may also play a role in helping some adults quit smoking cigarettes. Now that the comment period has closed, we intend to expedite the review and analysis of the comments so that we can leverage the information into policy as quickly as possible, should the science support further action.
  • Developing an e-cigarette product standard: The FDA has also begun exploring a product standard for e-cigarettes to help address existing concerns. As part of the standard, the agency will consider, among other things, levels of toxicants and impurities in propylene glycol, glycerin, and nicotine in e-liquids. While the process for establishing a product standard takes time, we recognize the urgency in setting some minimum, common sense standards, and will work to address this on an accelerated timeline.
  • Exploring ways to accelerate enforcement: We’re also looking at ways that the FDA can act even more efficiently when we become aware of violations affecting youth use of e-cigarettes, such as illegal product marketing to youth. We need to be faster and more agile when we identify new risks. We’ve also become aware of reports that some companies may be marketing new products that were introduced after the FDA’s compliance period and have not gone through premarket review. These products are being marketed both in violation of the law and outside of the FDA’s announced compliance policies. We take these reports very seriously. Companies should know that the FDA is watching and we will take swift action wherever appropriate. We are evaluating new ways to strengthen our partnership with sister agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission. We will also announce a robust series of additional enforcement actions in the coming months.

We have made great strides since we first unveiled our Comprehensive Plan for Tobacco and Nicotine Regulation last year. The components of this program we have outlined are intended to work as an integrated package of reform. We will pursue all of these policies simultaneously. Each is interconnected. Each element supports the others. We intend to achieve all of the elements.

We remain on track to meet our ambitious goals. But there is still much work to be done.

The staff at the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products is working hard to use our available tools to protect Americans from the harms of being addicted to tobacco products. And today, we’re committing to redoubling our efforts. Too many kids are still starting to use tobacco products and getting addicted. And, too many adults are still struggling to quit or to switch to less harmful options. To reduce the disease and death caused by tobacco use, the FDA will do everything within our power to help all ages.

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

Mitch Zeller, J.D., is Director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products

 Follow Commissioner Gottlieb on Twitter @SGottliebFDA

Follow the FDA Center for Tobacco Products on Twitter  https://twitter.com/FDATobacco

 

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

 

 

FDA Advisory Committees: Independent, Informed, Essential, and Evolving

By: Robert M. Califf, M.D.

One of the most common concerns raised when I meet with medical leaders is the need to improve the function of FDA’s Advisory Committees (ACs). ACs play a key role in FDA’s decision-making process by providing independent expert advice on extraordinarily complex issues. Just as importantly, they offer a forum for open and transparent discussion about these processes. As their name suggests, ACs are only advisory, but they can yield unique insights into understanding the balance of benefits and risks of products.

Not every product is brought to an advisory committee — when the answers are clear, the FDA makes decisions without consulting an AC. But when products present challenging issues or involve developing areas of science, the views of experts in relevant fields can provide essential perspective needed to make good decisions.

They also provide a barometer for the public on Agency thinking in a given field and offer insight into Agency decision-making and requirements for successful product development in a particular setting. The views expressed and votes taken can have financial impacts on companies and can lead to changes in how investments are made in therapeutic areas. So it is not surprising that the deliberations and views of ACs often receive significant media attention.

ACs have been the subject of ongoing discussions concerning their impartiality, their transparency, and how they affect decisions made about FDA-regulated products. In response to these concerns, the FDA is taking a closer look at the AC meeting process to determine what changes may be needed to ensure that ACs remain able to provide crucial expert advice relevant to the uncertainties that prompt such meetings.

Robert Califf

The process of engaging the expertise needed for ACs requires careful consideration, and the goal of ensuring that such a critical function leads to the best advice with optimal public trust by eliminating or managing conflicts is embedded in both law and culture at FDA. Experts who comprise ACs generally are classified as “special government employees” (SGEs) of the FDA. As such, they must declare any potential conflicts of interest and undergo a rigorous financial screening to ensure that they do not have a conflict or apparent conflict that could preclude their participation. SGEs are also expected to be free of intellectual bias that may foreclose their ability to consider the data and questions with an open mind.

Sometimes, a compelling interest can justify allowing a SGE with a potential conflict to participate. In such a case, the prospective AC member must be granted a waiver or appearance authorization, which provide a mechanism for clearly delineating the reasons for allowing that person to participate and requires disclosing the conflict. This aspect of the AC process has evolved over time, becoming increasingly complex and burdensome.

In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) restricted the FDA’s ability to use waivers for SGEs as part of an effort to reduce bias among AC members by allowing minimal or no financial conflicts. This led to concerns from multiple stakeholders about whether the FDAAA provision was in fact discouraging the most qualified experts from serving on ACs and thus depriving FDA of the best possible guidance on important scientific issues.

In response to these concerns, Congress included a provision in the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) that encouraged FDA to weigh an AC member’s conflicts against the need for that participant’s scientific expertise. However, despite this added flexibility, there are many who believe FDA has not been aggressive enough in advocating for waivers — a circumstance that they believe has sometimes resulted in difficulty obtaining the optimal expertise needed to address the complex problems typically brought to ACs. And some outside the Agency have wondered whether this means FDA is moving to reduce use of ACs.

The process for AC participation itself has led to other criticisms. Across academia, the AC system is seen as overburdened with unnecessary paperwork. Additionally, FDA has faced criticism that the concept of an “imputed interest” is interpreted so that academic leaders with significant experience and insight are considered to have conflicts relating to grants and contracts held by faculty members at the same institution — even if they themselves have no involvement with the project. The proliferation of roadblocks to serving as an SGE has led some within FDA and key leaders in various scientific fields to question the value of ACs in their current form.

After indepth discussion with the medical product and tobacco Centers, OMPT initiated a process improvement evaluation using Lean concepts, which comprise an industrial engineering toolset used for process improvement. These tools were applied to the AC process to fully understand the administrative requirements for planning meetings and screening potential SGEs. We are confident that administrative processes, both inside FDA and for SGEs, will be streamlined as a result.

The next step will be to evaluate current policies and identify areas where the evaluation of conflicts of interest for SGEs can be modernized. We must consider questions such as the criteria for disqualifying AC members from specific activities, the appropriate scope of “imputed interests,” and the interrelationship between the advisory role of AC members and the decisional role of Agency employees.

Even more importantly, we must engage in wide-ranging discussions inside and outside FDA about the best ways for the Agency to get the advice it needs to make critical decisions that protect and promote the health and safety of all Americans. To obtain the best expertise possible, we must optimally configure and administer our ACs.

There is no question that we must appropriately address potential conflicts for our SGEs.  However, we must also ensure that experts working in their fields are not unnecessarily foreclosed from participation in the AC process. As we continue to improve the mechanics of ACs and to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, we must also address the appropriate mix of expertise on committees, so that FDA scientists and staff get the advice they need to make the best decisions on behalf of the American public.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., is Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FSMA: The Future Is Now – Stakeholder Perspectives

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

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

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

By Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

FDA’s New Acting Chief Scientist Talks about His Office’s Vital Role

By: Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

This is a very exciting time to be stepping into the position of Acting Chief Scientist at FDA. A relative newcomer to the agency, I joined FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition seven months ago as chief medical officer and senior public health advisor for the Office of Foods and Veterinary Medicine.

Stephen OstroffBut as the former deputy director of the National Center for Infectious Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and director of the Bureau of Epidemiology at the Pennsylvania Department of Health, I often worked with colleagues at FDA and have a solid appreciation for FDA’s public health mission and the pivotal role science plays in everything FDA does. So, I’m very enthusiastic about continuing the development of FDA’s scientific enterprise and positioning the Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) to best support the agency’s scientific programs.

I’d like to take the opportunity over a series of blogs to discuss the important role that OCS plays in keeping our foods safe and nutritious and in getting essential therapies to the people who need them.

FDA has grown from a lone chemist in the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1862 to an agency with a staff of 14,600 employees. More than 65% of them are scientific and technical staff, representing disciplines such as biologists, nurses, pharmacists, physicians, veterinarians, behavioral scientists, statisticians, epidemiologists, economists and engineers.

FDA requires this breadth and depth of expertise to ensure that science informs the decisions we make about the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics, and medical devices, the safety of foods and cosmetics, and the regulation of tobacco products, particularly as those products become increasingly complex. Only then can the public be confident that these products are rigorously reviewed and assessed before and after they go to market.

Transformative changes in society and technology over the past several decades have created numerous opportunities to improve public health. They’ve also created challenges affecting FDA-regulated products and the way FDA conducts its operations.

For example, globalization is bringing an increasing volume of foods and drugs to our shores, often produced in countries that may not have our high standards of regulatory oversight. New areas of science and rapidly evolving technologies are showing real promise in our ability to prevent and cure some of today’s biggest killers, such as diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s.

To meet these challenges, we are “advancing regulatory science.” In other words, we are developing the new tools, methods and approaches that will be needed for a globalized regulatory environment and for translating new discoveries into innovative medical treatments. But advancing regulatory science research and training requires multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration within FDA and with our partners in academia, industry, other government agencies and with patient advocates. OCS works to meet these goals by strengthening FDA’s scientific infrastructure, forging a common vision, and working with our stakeholders to identify critical regulatory science and innovation needs.

In my future blogs, I will discuss examples of the exceptional work underway in the different OCS components—the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR), the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, the Office of Minority Health, the Office of Regulatory Science and Innovation, the Office of Scientific Integrity, the Office of Scientific Professional Development, and the Office of Women’s Health. I can think of no more exciting place to be than at the core of FDA’s pioneering regulatory science culture.

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