Breakthrough cancer detection device gets parallel FDA, CMS review

A breakthrough cancer in vitro diagnostic (IVD) device that uses next generation sequencing (NGS) to detect genetic mutations in solid tumors took only six months from product application to FDA approval and a preliminary national coverage determination (NCD) from CMS, thanks to the Parallel Review program. Foundation Medicine’s FoundationOne® CDx™ (F1CDx) received simultaneous overlapping review by the FDA and CMS, which reduces the time necessary to marketing and coverage of innovative medical devices.

The Parallel Review program for medical devices was fully implemented in October 2016 following a pilot program (see Parallel Review program will be fully implemented and extended indefinitely, Health Law Daily, October 24, 2016). Ordinarily, CMS does not begin the NCD decision-making process until after a device has been approved or cleared for marketing by the FDA, which results in a longer wait before Medicare beneficiaries can access the device. Through Parallel Review, manufacturers receive feedback from both agencies through the clinical trial design stage, which helps them to design trials that fulfill evidentiary requirements for both steps of the process, potentially eliminating the need for additional trials.

Although the F1CDx device is a laboratory-developed test and therefore generally would not require premarket review from the FDA, Foundation Medicine requested Breakthrough Device designation for the test. The 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255) expanded the Expedited Access Pathways (EAP) program to breakthrough technologies that provide more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating human disease or conditions (see Will the Cures Act address what ails the FDA approval process?, Health Law Daily, March 9, 2017). The FDA granted that designation because the F1CDx test has “potential to consolidate multiple companion diagnostic claims for patients and health care providers into a single test.”

New York dietary supplement maker accused of failing to comply with cGMP regulations

At the request of the FDA, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil complaint against Riddhi USA Inc. of Ronkonkoma, New York, and its owner and President Mohd M. Alam, to enjoin the distribution of adulterated and misbranded dietary supplements. The complaint alleges that Riddhi and Alam prepared, packed, and held dietary supplements under conditions that failed to comply with the FDA’s current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) regulations for these products.

According to the complaint, the FDA inspected the Riddhi facility in January 2017 and found numerous significant deviations from cGMP regulations, including a failure to: (1) establish product specifications for identity, purity, strength, and composition of their finished dietary supplements; (2) conduct at least one appropriate test to verify the identity of a dietary ingredient; and (3) establish and follow written procedures for quality control operations.

The complaint further alleges that many of the cGMP deviations were the same as those observed by the FDA during a previous inspection that occurred in January 2016. The complaint notes that on April 27, 2016, the FDA issued a warning letter detailing violations of cGMP regulations observed during the 2016 inspection and that these violations are the same as those observed during the FDA’s subsequent 2017 inspection.

The complaint also alleges that the dietary supplements were misbranded under the labeling provisions of the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) (21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.) because the products are fabricated from two or more ingredients but fail to declare any ingredients on their product labels or labeling. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the dietary supplement Neuroxygen is misbranded because it is manufactured using soy lecithin, which contains “soy,” but soy is not listed on the product label. The complaint also alleges that the products Prenatal Formula, Osteo Gest, Neuroxygen, Inflam-Ease, and All-Ease, are misbranded because their label or labeling fails to declare the place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor.

FDA effectively spends prescription drug user fee collections

After conducting its 2017 review of FDA policies and procedures and financial records related to the FDA’s use of prescription drug user fee collections, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that, overall, the FDA spent prescription drug user fee collections appropriately. Since the passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992 (P.L. 102-571), prescription drug user fees have significantly helped in expediting the drug approval process and eliminating backlogs of pending human drug applications. The average approval time for an application prior to the PDUFA was two years (OIG Report, A-05-16-00040, September 2017).

The PDUFA

The PDUFA, which must be reauthorized by Congress every five years, authorizes the FDA to collect user fees from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies that are seeking FDA approval of certain human drug and biological products to expedite the review of human drug applications. The user fees provide the FDA with resources, including the ability to hire more reviewers and support staff and upgrade information technology systems. According to the OIG, these resources help the FDA meet its goal of timely review of human drug and supplement applications.

Inadequate documentation

The OIG reviewed $796,065,980 in prescription drug user fees reported for October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015, and determined that the FDA did not have adequate supporting documentation for $6,402 in travel expenses, made a duplicate payment for airfare of $1,213, and overpaid a traveler $587. The OIG attributed the inadequate documentation to oversight by FDA staff rather than a systemic issue. Therefore, the OIG made no recommendations.

Study finds weak results for outcomes-based drug contracts

There is no evidence that outcomes-based pharmaceutical contracts lead to less spending or higher quality health care, according to a study conducted by the Commonwealth Fund. The limited impact of outcomes-based reimbursement may be due to the fact that the reimbursement model is only used for a small subset of drugs which offers limited metrics to evaluate the model’s effectiveness. The Commonwealth Fund suggested that voluntary testing and more rigorous evaluation could lead to better understanding of outcomes-based pharmaceutical reimbursement.

Outcomes-based

Following the trend towards value-based reimbursement in health care, some pharmaceutical manufacturers and private payers have made a push towards an outcomes-based pricing model in the prescription drug market. Outcomes-based models attach rebates and discounts to the health care outcomes observed in the patients who receive certain drugs. The purported goal of such arrangements is to improve the value of pharmaceutical-based care by paying more for drugs that work and less for drugs that do not. The reimbursement model appeals to manufacturers and payers as a means to increase the scope of formularies and coverage while reducing prices.

Restrictions

The outcomes-based model is limited by the fact that the model cannot apply to pharmaceuticals that do not have reliable outcomes measurements. Additionally, the outcomes measurements that do exist typically rely on claims data and exclude significant clinical outcomes. In other words, the outcomes-based contracts may not lead to optimized value because the actionable outcomes are limited to those that can be measured. Thus, while outcomes-based pharmaceutical reimbursement has the potential to increase the value of pharmaceutical treatments, greater evaluation of the model’s effectiveness and implementation is necessary to determine its true benefit.