Life sciences industry groups ask for indefinite stay, say FDA strayed

The Final rule titled Clarification of When Products Made or Derived From Tobacco Are Regulated As Drugs, Devices, or Combination Products; Amendments to Regulations Regarding “Intended Uses” (82 FR 2193, January 9, 2017) violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (P.L. 79-404) and constitutes an overstep of the FDA’s authority, according to a petition for an indefinite stay of the rule’s implementation, filed by the industry groups, Medical Information Working Group (MIWG), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). The petition focuses primarily on the second part of the Final rule, asking the FDA to indefinitely halt implementation of the Final rule’s new “intended use” policy.

Petition

The petition asserts, by not adequately informing the public of changes to the “intended use” doctrine, the FDA’s final rule violates the APA.  The substance of the petition argues by not including the “intended use” changes prior to the publication of the Final rule, on January 9, 2017, the industry groups were deprived of the fair notice and hearing required by the APA. Instead of being a permissible “logical outgrowth” of the proposed rule, the industry groups assert that the FDA strayed too far beyond the Proposed rule (80 FR 57756) and engaged in “a fundamental change to the regulatory scheme for drugs and devices.”

Intended use

Section 502(f)(1) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (FDC Act) requires that drug and device labeling contains “adequate information” regarding any “use for which [the drug or device] is intended.” The doctrine was codified at 21 C.F.R. Sec. 201.128 (for drugs) and at 21 C.F.R. Sec. 801.4 (for medical devices). The FDA doctrine includes the following provision: “if a manufacturer knows, or has knowledge of facts that would give him notice, that a drug or device introduced into interstate commerce by him is to be used for conditions, purposes, or uses other than the ones for which he offers it, he is required to provide adequate labeling for such a drug which accords with such other uses to which the article is to be put.”

The petitioners object to the above, the FDA’s pre-rule regulatory position, and were, instead, supportive of the position set out in the Proposed rule, which would have established a position where the FDA would no longer “regard a firm as intending an unapproved new use for an approved or cleared medical product based solely on that firm’s knowledge that such product was being prescribed or used by doctors for such use.”

Totality of the evidence

The industry groups challenge what they call the totality of the evidence standard, which, they say, the FDA presented for the first time in the Final rule, a doctrine under which a manufacturer would be required to provide adequate labeling for all intended uses, if the “totality of the evidence” indicates the manufacturer intends for a drug to have off-label uses. The petition asserts that by establishing such a requirement, the Final rule will violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, chilling truthful and non-misleading promotional speech.

Review

The petition is currently under FDA review. There are currently no pending resolutions to disapprove the rule in Congress.