1 / 29

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT Track IA: A Focus on Drug Safety

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT Track IA: A Focus on Drug Safety. Dara Corrigan & Ben Martin Arnold & Porter LLP. Government Oversight. Part I: Ben Martin Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Part II: Dara Corrigan HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Congress

asher
Download Presentation

CLINICAL DEVELOPMENT Track IA: A Focus on Drug Safety

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CLINICAL DEVELOPMENTTrack IA: A Focus on Drug Safety Dara Corrigan & Ben Martin Arnold & Porter LLP

  2. Government Oversight Part I: Ben Martin • Food & Drug Administration (FDA) Part II: Dara Corrigan • HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) • Congress • State Attorneys General, Other Agencies

  3. Part I: FDA Oversight • What We Will Cover: • Use of Pre-Marketing Clinical Studies in Developing a Drug’s Safety Profile • Post-Marketing Communication of Information in a Drug’s Safety Profile • Potential Consequences of Non-Compliance • What We Will NOT Cover: • Post-Marketing Surveillance/Pharmacovigillance Activities

  4. Sources of Authority • Current IND Regulations • 42 C.F.R. pt. 312 • FDA Guidance Documents Related to Clinical Studies • http://www.fda.gov/oc/gcp/default.htm • ICH Guidelines Related to Clinical Studies • http://www.ich.org/cache/compo/276-254-1.html • Proposed Revisions to IND Regulations • 68 Fed. Reg. 12,406 (Mar. 14, 2003)

  5. Drug Safety: The Big Picture • Intense scrutiny recently on drug safety issues • New players on the scene (addressed in Part II) • Recent attention should not obscure the focus historically given to drug safety issues • In 1980s, three criminal prosecutions (Oraflex, Selacryn, & Merital) alleging that drug companies withheld or failed to report properly AE information • Still, FDA has made drug safety a renewed priority • Organizational restructuring, proposed revisions to its regulations, new guidance documents, and other initiatives

  6. Developing a Safety Profile • Three sources from which a drug sponsor acquires data used to develop a drug’s safety profile: • Controlled clinical studies (pre- and post-marketing) • Post-marketing spontaneous AE reports from ANY source • Clinical studies, literature, MedWatch, other contacts from physicians/patients, lawsuit depositions • Epidemiological analysis of safety database • Clinical data have limited utility in identifying risks • Average # total participants (investigational and placebo) (4000) vs. low rate of occurrence of some serious risks (1/1000)

  7. Development of Clinical Safety Information Pre-Clinical Data • Investigator’s Brochure • Receipt, Evaluation, & Reporting of AEs • Clinical Study Reports • Product Labeling • BOTTOM LINE: Process for developing safety information is extremely complex; companies must have adequate organization (personnel and procedures) in place to perform this function

  8. Learning from Experience • Drug A: Majority of study population received short-term dosing; ADE related to extended dosing was not observed in pooled data • Drug B: AEs treated individually as minor ADEs later concluded to be symptoms of more serious syndrome • Drug C: Phenomenon thought to indicate efficacy later discovered to be a safety signal

  9. FDA’s Safety-Related Initiatives • “Critical Path” Initiative • “Drug Watch” for Emerging Drug Safety Information • Proposed Revision of AE Reporting Requirements in IND/NDA Regulations • Emphasis on “Risk Management”

  10. “Critical Path” Initiative • The “Critical Path” refers to the therapeutic product development process • FDA’s March 2004 Report • Addressed recent slowdown in innovative medical therapies submitted for approval, despite advances in biomedical research • Called for modernization of tools to access the safety and effectiveness of potential new products earlier and more accurately • “Critical Path Opportunities List”

  11. “Drug Watch” • Goal: Greater transparency and quicker access for physicians and patients to safety information • Draft guidance issued • Dedicated page on FDA’s website • FDA will post emerging drug safety information it is evaluating • Could include data in which causation has not been established • Drug Safety Oversight Board (DSB) • Membership includes representatives from CDER offices, CBER, CDRH, other HHS and non-HHS agencies • Will designate information to be posted on “Drug Watch” and track safety issues through resolution

  12. Reporting Requirements • Proposed revisions: • Would conform FDA’s reporting requirements to ICH guidelines • Would adopt terminology codifying the presumption of a causal relationship between AEs and the drug • Would expand the number of AE reports subject to expedited reporting • For post-marketing safety reports, would impose new standard for investigating such reports

  13. “Risk Management” “Risk management is an iterative process of (1) assessing a product’s benefit-risk balance, (2) developing and implementing tools to minimize its risks while preserving its benefits, (3) evaluating tool effectiveness and reassessing the benefit-risk balance, and (4) making adjustments, as appropriate, to the risk minimization tools to further improve the benefit-risk balance.” • Two Components: • “Risk Assessment” • “Risk Minimization”

  14. Pre-Marketing “Risk Assessment” “Risk assessment consists of identifying and characterizing the nature, frequency, and severity of the risks associated with the use of a product.” • No “one size fits all” methodology • Consider safety issues when designing and conducting “efficacy” clinical studies • Preclinical research, similarity to approved treatments, known metabolic pathways? • Population size and diversity, effect of dose and duration, potential unexpected interactions? • Adjust existing studies or design new studies based on new information

  15. “Risk Assessment” (cont.) • Adopt a standardized terminology for all studies • Increase likelihood that data could be pooled by avoiding mixing “apples with oranges” • Verify coding of investigators • Be consistent and accurate when coding AEs • Follow-up with individuals who withdraw • Analyze data thoroughly and “creatively” for expected and unanticipated safety signals • Play the “devil’s advocate”

  16. “Risk Minimization” “The goal of risk minimization is to minimize a product’s risks while preserving its benefits.” • Prescription requirement, product labeling usually adequate • Consider accepting some “labeling risks” in face of unknown drug risks • Risk Minimization Action Programs (RiskMAPs) • Drug-specific activity based on: nature and rate of known risk(s) vs. benefit(s), population most at risk or likely to benefit most, existence and risk(s)/benefit(s) of alternatives, reversibility of AE(s), preventability of AE(s), and probability of benefit(s)

  17. RiskMAPs • RiskMAP Elements • Specific goal(s), stated in absolute terms • Specific objective(s) that result in processes or behaviors likely to achieve goal(s) • Specific tool(s) to obtain objective(s) • Method for evaluating effectiveness of tools • RiskMAP Tools • Should maintain widest access to product with least burden on health system, while achieving risk minimization goal(s) • Three basic categories • Targeted Education & Outreach • Reminder Systems • Performance-Linked Access Systems

  18. Communication of Safety Profile • Safety claims, like efficacy claims: • Must not be “false or misleading in any particular” • Must be “based on competent and reliable scientific evidence” • Standard applies to all product labeling and advertising • Oral statements attributable to sponsor must be consistent with product label

  19. Consequences of Non-Compliance • Withdrawal of IND/NDA • Product Recall • Product Seizure; Disgorgement of Profits • Criminal Prosecution (company and individuals) • Consent Decree; Fines • Product Liability Litigation

  20. Summary of Part I • UNDERSTAND COMPLEXITY OF PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING A DRUG’S SAFETY PROFILE • DESIGN CLINICAL STUDIES WITH SAFETY ISSUES IN MIND • ANALYZE DATA THOROUGHLY FOR SAFETY SIGNALS; EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED • CHARACTERIZE THE SAFETY DATA ACCURATELY An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure

  21. Part II:OIG Oversight & Related Issues

  22. OIG’s Relationship to FDA • Beginning in 2000, after the election of President Bush, OIG did not focus on FDA • Similar to OIG’s relationship with CMS, coordination between OIG and FDA is not a routine practice • OIG has traditionally focused on internal reviews of FDA

  23. The 2005 OIG Work Plan • 11 FDA-related projects in the work plan • Focus primarily on FDA’s internal processes, e.g., monitoring post-marketing studies, oversight of off-label drug promotion

  24. The Guidant CIA • New focus on FDA regulatory requirements • Analogous to OIG’s efforts with respect to drug pricing issues • New fraud theories likely to emerge

  25. Congressional Scrutiny of FDA • Sen. Grassley’s focus on drug safety and whistleblowers • Sen. Grassley’s recent requests for information related to Guidant • Close relationship between Sen. Grassley and OIG

  26. State Involvement . . . and the Media • Data concerning negative clinical studies • Theory of fraud in failing to tell doctors about negative studies • Violation of New York consumer protection laws • Marketing data inconsistent with clinical studies June 3, 2004 SPITZER SUES A DRUG MAKER, SAYING IT HID NEGATIVE DATA

  27. COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL DRUG SAFETY CASES TO THE NEURONTIN PROSECUTION

  28. Aggressive Prosecution • Neurontin Case • Ghost-written articles, trips, sham “educational” session and grants • Example of the type of case that law enforcement likes—potentially high damages and egregious conduct that could put patients in jeopardy • Law enforcement uses legal theoryto recover money • Very high damageslinked to safety issues • Thomas the Tank Engine

  29. Summary of Part II • UNDERSTAND THE OIG/LAW ENFORCEMENT VIEW OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY • REMEMBER THE SUCCESS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT IN PURSUING THE IMPLIED CERTIFICATION THEORY IN THE DRUG PRICING CASES • DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH OIG/LAW ENFORCEMENT/CONGRESS/ STATES/MEDIA

More Related