FDA

Behind the “Package Insert”: Loophole in FDA’s Regulation of Off-Label Prescriptions

November 12, 2022
Agencies, Drug Policy, FDA, Healthcare, Industry, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health, Regulatory

Yolanda Li, MJLST Staffer

FDA Regulation of Drug Prescription Labeling and the “Package Insert”

Over the recent years, constant efforts have been made towards regulating medical prescriptions in an attempt to reduce risks accompanied with drug prescriptions. Among those efforts is the FDA’s revision of the format of prescription drug information, commonly known as the “package insert”.[1]

The package insert regulation, effective since 2006, applies to all prescription drugs. The package insert is to provide up-to-date information on the drug in an easy-to-read format. One significant feature is a section named “highlights”, which provides the most important information regarding the benefits and risks of a prescribed medication. The highlights section is typically half a page in length providing a concise summary of information including “boxed warning”, “indications and usage”, and “dosage and administration”.[2] The highlights section also refers physicians to appropriate sections of the full prescribing information. In this way, the package insert aims to draw both the physicians’ and the patients’ attention to the prescription of a drug, consequently accomplishing the ultimate purpose of managing medication use and reducing medical errors. Mike Leavitt, the Health and Human Services Secretary of the FDA commented that the package insert “help[s] ensure safe and optimal use of drugs, which translates into better health outcomes for patients and more efficient delivery of healthcare.”[3]

FDA Regulation of Off-Label Prescription and the Emergence of a Loophole

The FDA’s regulations relating to the labeling of prescription drugs, although systematic in its form, are cut short to a certain extent due to its lack of regulation on off-label prescriptions. Off-label prescriptions do not refer to a physician prescribing non-FDA approved drugs, a common misunderstanding by the public. Rather, off-label prescriptions are those that do not conform to the FDA-approved use set out in the FDA-approved label.[4] More specifically, off-label prescription generally refers to: “(1) the practice of a physician prescribing a legally manufactured drug for purposes other than those indicated on that drug’s FDA mandated labeling; (2) using a different method of applying the treatment and prescribing a drug, device, or biologic to patient groups other than those approved by FDA; and (3) prescriptions for drug dosages that are different from the approved label-recommended dosage or for time periods exceeding the label-recommended usage.”[5] For example if Drug A’s use, as mandated by the FDA, is to treat chronic headaches, and a physician prescribes it to treat a patient’s sprained ankle, that is an off-label prescription. However, such practice is common as estimated by the American Medical Association (AMA).[6]

The commonly approach is that the FDA and courts do not to interfere with physicians’ off-label uses.[7] Thus, when the FDA regulates the labeling of approved uses but does not regulate prescriptions for off-label uses, a loophole is formed. Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D., claims that because the FDA’s package insert regulation makes it easier for physicians to get access to important information about drugs, including drug safety and benefits, this regulation helps physicians to have more meaningful discussions with patients.[8] However, physicians’ discretion in prescribing off-label prescriptions would offset the proposed benefit of the FDA regulation because the regulation remains as guidance without force of law once physicians choose to go off from FDA’s approved uses of drugs. The easy-to-understand feature of the package insert and its benefit for a patient’s understanding of the drug becomes futile when physicians exercise discretion and prescribe drugs for uses not written on the inserts. In sum, when a patient receives an off-label prescription, the insert provides them little benefit as it addresses benefits and risks related to a different use of the drug.

It is undisputed that drug manufacturers have less discretion regarding drug labeling than physicians. If a manufacturer included an off-label use on a drug’s label, and promoted the off-label use of the drug, the drug would be considered misbranded. The manufacturer would then be subject to liability[9] as manufacturing a misbranded product in interstate commerce is prohibited.[10] However, the effect of regulations on manufacturers still fail to eliminate the loophole in off-label prescription: in response to the regulations, the manufacturer usually receives FDA approval for only a few drug uses and then relies on physicians prescribing off-label uses to ensure their profitability.[11] In this way, the manufacturer avoids liability under regulation and furthers the loophole in off-label prescription by encouraging physicians to prescribe more off-label uses in order to expand the manufacturer’s market.[12]

Why are Off-Label Prescriptions Difficult to Regulate?

One of the main reasons behind the lack of regulation of off-label prescriptions is the FDA’s objective in ensuring effective delivery of health care. Physicians are encouraged to use discretion and judgment in order to tailor prescription to patients’ individual conditions.[13] Another reason is to increase efficiency in treatments by avoiding the lengthy FDA approval process.[14] Aspirin was widely prescribed to reduce the risk of heart attack long before it was FDA-approved for this purpose; off-label prescriptions have also been proven effective in treatment of cancer, and off-label therapies have prolonged the lives of AIDS patients.[15] Another concern is drug prices in the United States, and promoting off-label uses has been found to help reduce drug prices as increased sales volume enables drug companies to lower their prices.[16] Indeed, off-label prescription has become a mainstream of medicine: “the FDA has long tolerated off-label drug use and has disclaimed any interest in regulating physicians’ prescribing practices.”[17] Today it is unclear whether the agency even has jurisdiction to regulate off-label prescription of drugs.[18]

In sum, there is clear guidance on the labeling of prescription drugs as a result of FDA regulation. However, because of difficulties in enforcement, the custom and widely accepted practice of off-label prescriptions and the inherent benefit of off-label prescription, the effects of the regulation are not as effective as what was firstly planned and proposed.

Notes

[1] The FDA Announces New Prescription Drug Information Format, U.S. Food & Drug Adm’ (Dec. 04 2015) https://www.fda.gov/drugs/laws-acts-and-rules/fda-announces-new-prescription-drug-information-format.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Margaret Z. Johns, Informed Consent: Requiring Doctors to Disclose Off-Label Prescriptions and Conflicts of Interest, 58 Hastings L.J. 967, 968 https://plus.lexis.com/document?crid=35364c11-2939-4e58-bceb-dab7ae8f0154&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A4P0W-GY20-00CW-906B-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=7341&pdmfid=1530671&pdisurlapi=true.

[5] Lisa E. Smilan, The off-label loophole in the psychopharmacologic setting: prescription of antipsychotic drugs in the nonpsychotic patient population, 30 Health Matrix 233, 240 (2020), https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=367cf8ad-295e-4f14-97fa-737618718d61&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A64BT-RR31-JWBS-61KV-00000-00&pdworkfolderid=5506aeec-9540-4837-89f0-5a1acfd81d8b&pdopendocfromfolder=true&prid=1d42abd0-b66e-43af-a61a-0d1fb94180f5&ecomp=gdgg&earg=5506aeec-9540-4837-89f0-5a1acfd81d8b#.

[6] Supra note 4.

[7] Sigma-Tau Pharms. v. Schwetz, 288 F.3d 141, 148, https://plus.lexis.com/document?crid=7d2a2b00-13ad-4953-968e-82a28724aa00&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fcases%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A45RF-5H50-0038-X1PB-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=6388&pdmfid=1530671&pdisurlapi=true.

[8] Supra note 1.

[9] 21 CFR 201.5, https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=e02a99fb-be65-4525-b83c-a167f3e21b93&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fadministrative-codes%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A603K-BXD1-DYB7-W30Y-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=5154&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&prid=ff2b7e20-9dab-49b0-8385-627c16ee0ba2&ecomp=vfbtk&earg=sr2.

[10] 21 CFR 801.4, https://plus.lexis.com/document/?pdmfid=1530671&crid=721a586d-52a4-4228-b0c3-c464a77d6e6a&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fadministrative-codes%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A638R-X4S3-GXJ9-32FV-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=5154&pdworkfolderlocatorid=NOT_SAVED_IN_WORKFOLDER&prid=ff2b7e20-9dab-49b0-8385-627c16ee0ba2&ecomp=vfbtk&earg=sr6.

[11]  Supra note 4.

[12] Id.

[13]   Supra note 7.

[14]   Supra note 4.

[15]  Id.

[16] Supra note 4, at 981.

[17] ​​Kaspar J. Stoffelmayr, Products Liability And “Off-label” Uses Of Prescription Drugs, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 275, 279, https://plus.lexis.com/document?crid=a2181ffc-7f3e-4bce-b82e-08ba9111194f&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fanalytical-materials%2Furn%3AcontentItem%3A3S3V-4CF0-00CV-K03W-00000-00&pdsourcegroupingtype=&pdcontentcomponentid=7358&pdmfid=1530671&pdisurlapi=true.

[18]  Id.

Beef (and Residual Hormones?). It’s What’s for Dinner.

November 6, 2022
Agencies, Agriculture, Animal Law, Environment, FDA, Food and Agriculture, Health, Industry, Public Safety

Kira Le, MJLST Staffer

The beef industry in the United States has been using hormones, both natural and synthetic, to increase the size of cattle prior to slaughter for more than a century.[1] Capsules are implanted under the skin behind a cow’s ear and release specific doses of hormones over a period of time with the goal of increasing the animal’s size more quickly. Because the use of these hormones in the beef industry involves both drug regulation and food safety regulations, both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are responsible for ensuring the safety of the practice and regulating its use.[2] According to the FDA, “scientific data” is used to establish “acceptable” safe limits for hormones in meat by the time it is consumed.[3] Agricultural science experts support the fact that the naturally-occurring hormones used in beef production, such as estrogen, are used in amounts much smaller than those that can be found in other common foods, such as eggs and tofu.[4] However, the debate within the scientific community, and between jurisdictions that allow the sale of hormone-treated beef (such as the United States) and those that have banned its importation (such as the European Union), is still raging on in 2022 and has led to significant distrust in the beef industry by consumers.[5] With the release of research earlier this year presenting opposing conclusions regarding the safety of the use of synthetic hormones in the beef industry, the FDA has a responsibility to acknowledge evidence suggesting that such practices may be harmful to human health.

Some defend the use of hormones in the beef industry as perfectly safe and, at this point, necessary to sustainably feed a planet on which the demand for meat continues to increase with a growing population. Others, such as the European Union and China, both of which have restricted the importation of beef from cattle implanted with growth-promoting hormones, argue that the practice threatens human health.[6] For example, a report out of Food Research Collaboration found that a routinely-used hormone in United States beef production posed a significant risk of cancer.[7] Such a finding is reminiscent of when, in the not-too-distant past, known carcinogen diethylstilbestrol (DES) was used in U.S. cattle production and led to dangerous meat being stocked on grocery store shelves.[8]

This year, research published in the Journal of Applied Animal Research discussed the effects that residual hormones left in beef and the environment have on human health in the United States.[9] Approximately 63% of beef cattle in the United States are implanted with hormones, most of which are synthetic.[10] Despite organizations and agencies such as the FDA assuring consumers that the use of these synthetic hormones in cattle production is safe, the residues that can be left behind may be carcinogenic and/or lead to reproductive or developmental issues in humans.[11] Furthermore, the National Residue Program (NRP), housed in the USDA, is not only the “only federal effort that routinely examines food animal products for drug residues,” but also only examines tissues not commonly consumed, such as the liver and kidney.[12] Researchers Quaid and Abdoun offer the example of Zeranol, a genotoxic synthetic hormone used in beef production in the United States that activates estrogen receptors, causing dependent cell proliferation in the mammary glands that may result in breast cancer.[13] They also noted the problem of residual hormones found in the environment surrounding cattle production locations, which have been found to reduce human male reproductive health and increase the risk of some endocrine cancers.[14]

Also this year, researchers published an article in the Journal of Animal Science claiming that despite the “growing concern” of the effects of residual hormones on human health, including the earlier onset of puberty in girls and an increase in estrogen-related diseases attributed to the excessive consumption of beef, research shows that cattle treated with hormones, “when given at proper administration levels, do not lead to toxic or harmful levels of hormonal residues in their tissues.”[15] The researchers concluded that the hormones have no effect on human health and are not the cause of disease.[16]

Perhaps it is time for the FDA to acknowledge and address the scientific disagreements on the safety of the use of hormones – synthetic hormones, especially – in beef production, as well as reassure consumers that players in the agriculture industry are abiding by safety regulations. Better yet, considering the currentness of the research, the inconsistency of the conclusions, and the seriousness of the issue, formal hearings – held by either the FDA or Congress – may be necessary to rebuild the trust of consumers in the U.S. beef industry.

Notes

[1] Synthetic Hormone Use in Beef and the U.S. Regulatory Dilemma, DES Daughter (Nov. 20, 2016), https://diethylstilbestrol.co.uk/synthetic-hormone-use-in-beef-and-the-us-regulatory-dilemma/.

[2] Id.

[3] Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals, U.S. Food and Drug Admin (Apr. 13, 2022), https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/steroid-hormone-implants-used-growth-food-producing-animals.

[4] Amanda Blair, Hormones in Beef: Myths vs. Facts, S.D. State Univ. Extension (July 13, 2022), https://extension.sdstate.edu/hormones-beef-myths-vs-facts.

[5] See Julia Calderone, Here’s Why Farmers Inject Hormones Into Beef But Never Into Poultry, Insider (Mar. 31, 2016), https://www.businessinsider.com/no-hormones-chicken-poultry-usda-fda-2016-3 (discussing the debate within the scientific community over whether the use of hormones in animals raised for human consumption is a risk to human health).

[6] New Generation of Livestock Drugs Linked to Cancer, Rafter W. Ranch (June 8, 2022), https://rafterwranch.net/livestock-drugs-linked-to-cancer/.

[7] Id.

[8] Synthetic Hormone Use in Beef and the U.S. Regulatory Dilemma, DES Daughter (Nov. 20, 2016), https://diethylstilbestrol.co.uk/synthetic-hormone-use-in-beef-and-the-us-regulatory-dilemma/.

[9] Mohammed M. Quaid & Khalid A. Abdoun, Safety and Concerns of Hormonal Application in Farm Animal Production: A Review, 50 J. of Applied Animal Rsch. 426 (2022).

[10] Id. at 428.

[11] Id. at 429–30.

[12] Id. at 430.

[13] Id. at 432–33.

[14] Id. at 435.

[15] Holly C. Evans et al., Harnessing the Value of Reproductive Hormones in Cattle Production with Considerations to Animal Welfare and Human Health, 100 J. of Animal Sci. 1, 9 (2022).

[16] Id.

Making Moves on Marijuana: President Biden and Minnesota Update Marijuana Laws in 2022

October 23, 2022
Agencies, Drug Policy, Employment Law, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Health, Public Health, Regulatory

Emma Ehrlich, MJLST Staffer

Federal Pardoning 

Earlier this month, President Biden announced that he would be pardoning anyone with a federal conviction due to simple marijuana possession charges. This will affect approximately 6,500 people on the federal level, plus thousands of others who were convicted in the District of Columbia. However, this pardon does not cover anyone involved in the actual sale of marijuana or anyone convicted under state possession laws, meaning it affects only a subsection of those who have been convicted of marijuana related charges. The administration’s goal was to give a clean slate to those who were struggling to find housing or employment due to a possession charge, and to encourage state legislatures to do the same. 

The second half of President Biden’s announcement was to task the Attorney General with reviewing the federal government’s categorization of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, which President Biden pointed out is currently the same categorization as heroin. Drugs are supposed to be assigned to schedules based on their medical uses and addictive qualities. The Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) currently categorizes marijuana as a “drug[] with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) explains on their website, almost in a regretful tone, that only four cannabis drugs have been approved by the FDA, one containing CBD and the other three containing synthetically derived THC. This categorization issue is not new, but because legislation regarding marijuana is changing rapidly federal agencies have had to play catch up with the law.  

Minnesota and Beyond 

Meanwhile, the state of Minnesota is still chugging along in terms of marijuana legalization. In July of this year, the state of Minnesota legalized the production and sale of edibles containing 5-mg of THC, which can now be purchased by adults in bags containing no more than 50-mg of THC. This sounds like good news, but many state residents are baffled at the lack of a tax provision in the new state law. The University of Maryland actually did a study on Minnesota’s potential for taxing cannabis, and determined that if the newly legalized edibles were taxed at the same rate as Michigan taxes, the state could have collected over $40 million. Given this high estimate, it is not out of the question that a tax on marijuana will be implemented in the future. 

Minnesotan employers were similarly not thrilled when the law passed as they felt ill equipped to update their drug policies. Employers “can bar workers from using, possessing, and being under the influence of THC during work hours or in the workplace,” as well as conduct “random drug testing for safety-sensitive positions” and “employees suspected of being intoxicated.” The gray area exists in the employer’s ability to hire and fire based on an applicant or employee’s use of marijuana outside of work. It is currently illegal to make hiring and firing decisions based on tobacco usage or alcohol consumption, and it is unclear if marijuana will be treated in the same manner. The added layer to marijuana testing is that a positive drug test for marijuana does not mean an employee consumed THC right before work since THC lingers in the body for so long. Thus, an employee could test positive for mairjuana at work even if they had used the drugs days ago and were no longer feeling its effects. Though the employee would have ingested the drug legally, they may not be considered for a job position or could be fired from a job they already hold. This is the type of issue that has led a number of municipalities in Minnesota to put a pause on the sale of the state legalized edibles. In contrast, California passed a law just last month protecting employees, apart from some exceptions, from being discriminated against based on their marijuana usage when not at work. What might be a little concerning is that California made recreational marijuana legal in 2016, and this law won’t go into effect until 2024, meaning there was an eight year gap in the legislation. Regardless, this may serve as the beginning of a pattern, pointing to what Minnesota may do down the line. 

In 2020 New Jersey passed a law legalizing recreational marijuana use which went into effect in April of this year. Similarly to California, part of the law protects workers from being discriminated against because of their marijuana use outside of work. However, Walmart and Sam’s Club have continued to administer drug tests to job applicants to search for traces of marijuana, a practice that has gotten them into legal trouble in New Jersey. Walmart is arguing that only the state Cannabis Regulatory Commission can enforce the new employment law, and that this case should be dismissed because it was brought by individuals. Courts in other states in which similar laws have been passed have issued decisions that oppose Walmart’s position, ruling that individual workers can sue under the law. It seems that Minnesota is not the only state that has enacted fuzzy recreational drug use laws that directly affect employers and employees. 

On the bright side of this employment confusion, many appreciate the baby step the Minnesota legislature has taken to legalize marijuana use. The state has been in dire need of updated marijuana legislation, and the hope is that continuing this legalization process will lessen the disparities between black and white arrests for marijuana possession. This change is necessary, because as of 2020 Minnesota was found to rank 8th in the United States for largest racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests. In 2021, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension released data showing that out of the over 6,000 marijuana related arrests made in the state, 90% were for simple possession charges, and a black person was almost five times more likely to be arrested for these types of charges than a white person. This statistic is down from almost eight times more likely back in 2010, but is still extremely present. 

In Conclusion

President Biden’s pardon is just a beginning step towards moving the US forward on marijuana legislation. Though states such as Minnesota are moving in the right direction by gradually legalizing recreational marijuana use, the laws are often unclear and lead to a multitude of logistical issues like those seen in the employment sector. Regardless, making continued progress is important to the U.S. for many reasons and is crucial for helping to lessen racial arrest disparities. Hopefully this pardon will have the effect the administration aimed for and will encourage more state legislatures to update their policies on marijuana usage.

 

 

Xenotransplantation: Ethics and Public Policy Need To Catch up to the Science

March 5, 2022
Bioethics, Biotechnology, Discrimination, Ethics, FDA, Health, Medical Devices, New Technology, Personalized Medicine

Claire Colby, MJLST Staffer

In early January, surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center made history by successfully transplanting a genetically altered pig heart to a human recipient, David Bennett.  The achievement represents a major milestone in transplantation. The demand for transplantable organs far outpaces the supply, and xenotransplantation–the implantation of non-human tissue into human recipients–could help bridge this gap. In the U.S. alone, more than 106,000 people are on the waiting list for transplants. Legal and ethical questions remain open about the appropriateness of implementing xenotransplants on a large scale. 

The FDA approved the January transplant through an emergency authorization compassionate use pathway because Bennett likely would have died without this intervention. Larger clinical trials will be needed to generate enough data to show that xenotransplants are safe and effective. The FDA will require these trials to show xenotransplantations are non-inferior to human organ transplants. IRB requirements bar interventions where risk outweighs benefits for patients, but accurately predicting and measuring risk is difficult. 

If xenotransplantation becomes standard clinical practice, animal rights proponents may balk at the idea of raising pigs for organs. Far before that point, pre-clinical trials will make heavy use of animal models. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) which oversee animal research in universities and medical entities apply a “much lower ethical standard” for animals than human research subjects. Bioethicists apply a “3R” framework for animal subjects research that stresses replacing animal models, reducing animal testing, and refining their use. Because of the inherent nature of xenotransplantation, applying this framework may be near impossible. Ongoing discussions are needed with relevant stakeholders.  

If both human and animal organs are approved for widespread transplant, but human organs prove superior, new allocation policies are needed to determine who gets what. Organ allocation policy is currently dictated by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). As it stands, organ transplantation shows inequality across racial groups and financial status. New allocation policies for organs must not reinforce or worsen these disparities. 

Like all medical interventions, patients must be able to provide informed consent for xenotransplantation. The recipient of the altered pig heart had previously been deemed ineligible for a human heart transplant because his heart failure was poorly managed. Reserving experimental interventions, like xenotransplantations, for the sickest patients raises serious ethical concerns. Are these desperate patients truly able to give meaningful consent? If xenotransplantation becomes a common practice, the traditional model of institutional review boards may need updating. Currently, individual institutions maintain their own IRBs. Xenotransplantation of altered animal organs may involve several sites: procurement of the organ, genetic editing, and transplantation may all take place in different locations. A central IRB for xenotransplantation could standardize and streamline this process. 

In all, xenotransplantation represents an exciting new frontier in transplant medicine. Responsibly implementing this innovation will require foresight and parallel innovation in ethics and public policy. 

Relieving a Pain Management Crisis: How Medical Cannabis May Help the Prescription Opioid Epidemic

November 13, 2021
Drug Policy, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Uncategorized

David C. Edholm, MJLST Staffer

“The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human . . . drugs.” To no surprise, near the top of the FDA’s list of current priorities is ameliorating the prescription opioid epidemic. More than 14,000 deaths in 2019 are attributed to prescription opioid overdoses. (See fig. 4 of hyperlink). Celebrity opioid overdoses have raised public awareness of the crisis, however, hundreds of millions of opioid prescriptions are written each year to treat “moderate-to-severe” pain. The epidemic continues today, begging the question of whether any reasonable alternatives to prescription opioids exist, perhaps medical cannabis.

California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis through a ballot initiative in 1996; since then, 35 states and four territories followed. Although the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA have expressed skepticism about safety and efficacy due to a lack of quality research, legalization in a recreational capacity is becoming more popularized. Recent systematic studies on high-potency cannabis products have shown a cause for concern, however, studies on substituting medical cannabis for prescription opioids remain inconclusive, leaving the door open to this future possibility.

In order for medical cannabis to legitimately contend with prescription opioids, quality safety and efficacy data are required. But the public stands by as FDA has yet to approve a medical use and “marihuana” remains a Schedule I controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 812(1) (2018). Recent federal efforts push for decriminalization, but historically the federal government has adopted a “hands off” approach, giving states choice on cannabis regulation. There is coast-to-coast differentiation on cannabis legalization with most states permitting medical use and a growing number permitting recreational use, but due to its current state of being under-researched, it is substantially less controversial to leave the political choice for legalization to the states as long as safety and efficacy are opaque.

The benefit of state choice is articulated through efforts from states like California and Minnesota that aid the national effort to clarify safety and efficacy in legitimate ways. California, for example, allows medical and recreational use, as a result providing a vast data cohort. The state senate bill reads, “[i]t is the intent of the legislature that the state commission objective scientific research by . . . the University of California, regarding the safety and efficacy of administering cannabis as part of medical treatment.” Additionally, Minnesota, which permits medical use and submitted a bill for recreational approval now pending in the senate, created a medical cannabis patient registry that accumulates data, generates reports, and submits the reports to legislature and prominent medical journals that are available to the public. These states are among others providing similar efforts.

Medical cannabis may be an alternative for prescription opioids, yet there remain several questions about safety and efficacy that must be answered in order for the FDA to move on any milestone cannabis regulation. It seems that severe risks posed by cannabis are extremely rare, and are not a public health threat requiring immediate attention. Prescription opioids remain standard treatment post-operation or post-physical trauma and are usually prescribed for short-term use, but 20% of post-op patients still use opioids three months after surgery, despite an increased risk of addiction after only a few days of use. It seems the opioid epidemic is here to stay as long as prescribing practices remain the same, at least until an effective alternative arises. Maybe cannabis will be a solution. It depends on the data.

You Wouldn’t 3D Print Tylenol, Would You?

October 12, 2021
3-D Printing, Administrative Law, Bioethics, Biotechnology, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Health, Healthcare, Healthcare Reform, Medical Devices, Personalized Medicine, Pharmaceuticals, Uncategorized

By Mason Medeiros, MJLST Staffer

3D printing has the potential to change the medical field. As improvements are made to 3D printing systems and new uses are allocated, medical device manufacturers are using them to improve products and better provide for consumers. This is commonly seen through consumer use of 3D-printed prosthetic limbs and orthopedic implants. Many researchers are also using 3D printing technology to generate organs for transplant surgeries. By utilizing the technology, manufacturers can lower costs while making products tailored to the needs of the consumer. This concept can also be applied to the creation of drugs. By utilizing 3D printing, drug manufacturers and hospitals can generate medication that is tailored to the individual metabolic needs of the consumer, making the medicine safer and more effective. This potential, however, is limited by FDA regulations.

3D-printed drugs have the potential to make pill and tablet-based drugs safer and more effective for consumers. Currently, when a person picks up their prescription the drug comes in a set dose (for example, Tylenol tablets commonly come in doses of 325 or 500 mg per tablet). Because the pills come in these doses, it limits the amount that can be taken to multiples of these numbers. While this will create a safe and effective response in most people, what if your drug metabolism requires a different dose to create maximum effectiveness?

Drug metabolism is the process where drugs are chemically transformed into a substance that is easier to excrete from the body. This process primarily happens in the kidney and is influenced by various factors such as genetics, age, concurrent medications, and certain health conditions. The rate of drug metabolism can have a major impact on the safety and efficacy of drugs. If drugs are metabolized too slowly it can increase the risk of side effects, but if they are metabolized too quickly the drug will not be as effective. 3D printing the drugs can help minimize these problems by printing drugs with doses that match an individual’s metabolic needs, or by printing drugs in structures that affect the speed that the tablet dissolves. These individualized tablets could be printed at the pharmacy and provided straight to the consumer. However, doing so will force pharmacies and drug companies to deal with additional regulatory hurdles.

Pharmacies that 3D print drugs will be forced to comply with Current Good Manufacturing Procedures (CGMPs) as determined by the FDA. See 21 C.F.R. § 211 (2020). CGMPs are designed to ensure that drugs are manufactured safely to protect the health of consumers. Each pharmacy will need to ensure that the printers’ design conforms to the CGMPs, periodically test samples of the drugs for safety and efficacy, and conform to various other regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 211.65, 211.110 (2020). These additional safety precautions will place a larger strain on pharmacies and potentially harm the other services that they provide.

Additionally, the original drug developers will be financially burdened. When pharmacies 3D print the medication, they will become a new manufacturing location. Additionally, utilizing 3D printing technology will lead to a change in the manufacturing process. These changes will require the original drug developer to update their New Drug Application (NDA) that declared the product as safe and effective for use. Updating the NDA will be a costly process that will further be complicated by the vast number of new manufacturing locations that will be present. Because each pharmacy that decides to 3D print the medicine on-site will be a manufacturer, and because it is unlikely that all pharmacies will adopt 3D printing at the same time, drug developers will constantly need to update their NDA to ensure compliance with FDA regulations. Although these regulatory hurdles seem daunting, the FDA can take steps to mitigate the work needed by the pharmacies and manufacturers.

The FDA should implement a regulatory exception for pharmacies that 3D print drugs. The exemption should allow pharmacies to avoid some CGMPs for manufacturing and allow pharmacies to proceed without being registered as a manufacturer for each drug they are printing. One possibility is to categorize 3D-printed drugs as a type of compounded drug. This will allow pharmacies that 3D print drugs to act under section 503A of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. Under this section, the pharmacies would not need to comply with CGMPs or premarket approval requirements. The pharmacies, however, will need to comply with the section 503A requirements such as having the printing be performed by a licensed pharmacist in a state-licensed pharmacy or by a licensed physician, limiting the interstate distribution of the drugs to 5%, only printing from bulk drugs manufactured by FDA licensed establishments and only printing drugs “based on the receipt of a valid prescription for an individualized patient”. Although this solution limits the situations where 3D prints drugs can be made, it will allow the pharmacies to avoid the additional time and cost that would otherwise be required while helping ensure the safety of the drugs.

This solution would be beneficial for the pharmacies wishing to 3D print drugs, but it comes with some drawbacks. One of the main drawbacks is that there is no adverse event reporting requirement under section 503A. This will likely make it harder to hold pharmacies accountable for dangerous mistakes. Another issue is that pharmacies registered as an outsourcing facility under section 503B of the FD&C Act will not be able to avoid conforming to CGMPs unless they withdraw their registration. This issue, however, could be solved by an additional exemption from CGMPs for 3D-printed drugs. Even with these drawbacks, including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs proposes a relatively simple way to ease the burden on pharmacies that wish to utilize this new technology.

3D printing drugs has the opportunity to change the medical drug industry. The 3D-printed drugs can be specialized for the individual needs of the patient, making them safer and more effective for each person. For this to occur, however, the FDA needs to create an exemption for these pharmacies by including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs.

Zoinks! Can the FTC Unmask Advertisements Disguised by Social Media Influencers?

February 25, 2020
FDA, Regulatory, Social Media

Jennifer Satterfield, MJLST Staffer

Social media sites like Instagram and YouTube are filled with people known as “influencers.” Influencers are people with a following on social media that use their online fame to promote products and services of a brand. But, with all that power comes great responsibility, and influencers, as a whole, are not being responsible. One huge example of irresponsible influencer activity is the epic failure and fraudulent music festival known as Fyre Festival. Although Fyre Festival promised a luxury, VIP experience on a remote Bahamian island, it was a true nightmare where “attendees were stranded with half-built huts to sleep in and cold cheese sandwiches to eat.” The most prominent legal action was against Fyre’s founders and organizers, Billy McFarland and Ja Rule, including a six-year criminal sentence for wire fraud against McFarland. Nonetheless, a class action lawsuit also targeted the influencers. According to the lawsuit, the influencers did not comply with Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) guidelines and disclose they were being paid to advertise the festival. Instead, “influencers gave the impression that the guest list was full of the Social Elite and other celebrities.” Yet, the blowback against influencers since the Fyre Festival fiasco appears to be minimal.

According to a Mediakix report, “[i]n one year, a top celebrity will post an average of 58 sponsored posts and only 3 may be FTC compliant.” The endorsement guidelines specify that if there is a “material connection” between the influencer and the seller of an advertised product, this connection must be fully disclosed. The FTC even created a nifty guide for influencers to ensure compliance. While disclosure is a small burden and there are several resources informing influencers of their duty to disclose, these guidelines are still largely ignored.

Evens so, the FTC has sent several warning letters to individual influencers over the years, which indicates it is monitoring top influencers’ posts. However, a mere letter is not doing much to stop the ongoing, flippant, and ignorant disregard toward the FTC guidelines. Besides the letters, the FTC rarely takes action against individual influencers. Instead, if the FTC goes after a bad actor, “it’s usually a brand that[] [has] failed to issue firm disclosure guidelines to paid influencers.” Consequently, even though it appears as if the FTC is cracking down on influencers, it is really only going after the companies. Without actual penalties, it is no wonder most influencers are either unaware of the FTC guidelines or continue to blatantly ignore them.

Considering this problem, there is a question of what the FTC can really do about it. One solution is for the FTC to dig in and actually enforce its guidelines against influencers like it did in 2017 with CSGO Lotto and two individual influencers, Trevor Martin and Thomas Cassell. CSGO Lotto was a website in which users could gamble virtual items called “skins” from the game Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. According to the FTC’s complaint, Martin and Thomas endorsed CSGO Lotto but failed to disclose they were both the owners and officers of the company. CSGO Lotto also paid other influencers to promote the website. The complaint notes that numerous YouTube videos by these influencers either failed to include a sponsorship disclosure in the videos or inconspicuously placed such disclosures “below the fold” in the description box. While the CSGO Lotto action was a huge scandal in the video game industry, it was not widely publicized to the general population. Moreover, Martin and Cassell got away with a mere slap on the wrist—“[t]he [FTC] order settling the charges requires Martin and Cassell to clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connections with an endorser or between an endorser and any promoted product or service.” Thus, it was not enough to compel other influencers into compliance. Instead, if the FTC started enforcement actions against big-name influencers, other influencers may also fear retribution and comply.

On the other hand, the FTC could continue its enforcement against the companies themselves, but this time with more teeth. Currently, the FTC is preparing to take further steps to ensure consumer protection in the world of social media influencers. Recently, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra acknowledged in a public statement that “it is not clear whether our actions are deterring misconduct in the marketplace, due to the limited sanctions we have pursued.” Although Chopra is not interested in pursuing small influencers, but rather the advertisers that pay them, it is possible that enforcement against the companies will cause influencers to comply as well.

Accordingly, Chopra’s next steps include: (1) “[d]eveloping requirements for technology platforms (e.g. Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok) that facilitate and either directly or indirectly profit from influencer marketing;” (2) “[c]odifying elements of the existing endorsement guides into formal rules so that violators can be liable for civil penalties under Section 5(m)(1)(A) and liable for damages under Section 19; 7;” and (3) “[s]pecifying the requirements that companies must adhere to in their contractual arrangements with influencers, including through sample terms that companies can include in contracts.” By pushing some of the enforcement duties onto social media platforms themselves, the FTC gains more monitoring and enforcement capabilities. Furthermore, codifying the guidelines into formal rules gives the FTC teeth to impose civil penalties and creates tangible consequences for those who previously ignored the guidelines. Finally, by actually requiring companies to adhere to these rules via their contract with influencers, influencers will be compelled to follow the guidelines as well. Therefore, under these next steps, paid advertising disclosures on social media can become commonplace. But only time will really tell if the FTC will achieve these steps.

Will the Vaping Industry Go Up in Smoke?

October 2, 2019
Administrative Law, FDA, Health, Uncategorized

Stephen Wood, MJLST Staffer

It’s no secret that vaping has become increasingly popular. The number of users has increased from 7 million in 2011 to 41 million as of 2018. The total market is now worth an estimated $19.3 billion. Less clear is the future of industry regulation in light of the recent respiratory illnesses linked to vaping. On September 24, 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that vaping was attributed to 805 illnesses and 12 deaths. Pressure is building on the industry’s major players. In the last week, we have seen the cancellation of a merger between two of the largest tobacco companies, Altria and Philip Morris, and the release of the CEO of Juul, Kevin Burns.

However, the respiratory illnesses associated with vaping haven’t been linked to a specific product, and it is unclear what the long-term effects of vaping are. Because of this uncertainty, some states have implemented blanket restrictions on the sale of vaping products, President Trump has proposed new regulations, and the CDC has issued warnings regarding their safety. This is blindsiding the industry, which has been free from regulation by the FDA until recently.

Vaping devices, also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), became subject to the FDA’s regulatory scheme for all tobacco products on August 8, 2016. The Deeming Rule placed ENDS in the same category of products as cigarettes and other traditional tobacco products, which have been regulated under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act since 2009. For this reason, the minimum age for purchasing ENDS is 18 years old, and the marketing, manufacturing, and distribution of ENDS is heavily regulated.

Juul, in particular, has come under fire for its marketing strategies. Among other claims, many lawsuits allege that the company specifically targeted minors through its use of social media and distribution of enticing flavors. These practices have also been the focal point of the recent surge of state regulations, which “are filling what many see as a regulatory void caused by federal inaction.” For example, in Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer implemented an emergency ban, limiting the sale of vaping products to those which are tobacco flavored. New York did the same but exempted menthol from the ban. Massachusetts, notably, implemented a four-month emergency ban on all products. President Trump’s proposed ban, on the other hand, would be limited to flavored products.

If President Trump’s proposal is adopted, the industry would see an estimated 80% loss in sales. It will be interesting to see what the regulatory landscape looks like once the smoke clears.

 

Treating Depression with Ketamine? How The Investment Was Made

March 15, 2019
Biotechnology, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Health

Hunter Moss, MJLST Staffer

Depression is a serious mental disorder that afflicts millions of Americans each year. One in three of these individuals struggles to find a treatment method that alleviates their condition, and are aptly said to suffer from treatment-resistant depression. In the most severe cases, treating depression can be a life or death decision—depression is the leading cause of over 41,000 suicides every year. For those dealing with depression, every day is a struggle to persevere and try to regain a sense of normalcy.

A new therapy for treatment-resistant depression was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this week, one that could help those that have been unable to find relief elsewhere. The unexpected source of the therapy is esketamine. If the name of this drug sounds familiar, it is because the name is based on, and molecularly similar to, the street drug named ketamine. While originally synthesized in the 1960’s as an anesthetic and first used widely in the Vietnam War, ketamine is now known as a party drug, providing the user with mild hallucinations and a sense of euphoria. Due to its dangerous side-effects and potential for abuse, ketamine was placed on the Schedule III of the United States Controlled Substance Act in August of 1999.

In the early 1990’s, researchers at Yale University first recognized the potential for ketamine to treat the symptoms of depression. Since then, scientists sought to confirm the viability of ketamine as a treatment option for individuals who did not experience relief from other treatment methods. A 2012 study out of Baylor College of Medicine proved just that: 85% of patients with severe depression reported the treatment to be effective. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are most commonly prescribed to treat depression and can take weeks to build in a patient’s system before becoming effective, ketamine can provide nearly immediate relief with its full effect being felt in as little as two days.

With the science firmly in place, the next hurdle advocates of ketamine faced was of perception—in the eyes of the FDA and the public alike. Radical clinics began to emerge across the country to provide patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression with a safe, heavily-monitored environment to undergo care. Because ketamine had yet to be recognized as a potential aid for depression by the FDA, clinic physicians would often have to prescribe the drug under the guise of using it as an anesthetic. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to a new treatment for a severe mental disorder created some inevitable quandaries for both doctors and patients, who would be unable to receive insurance coverage for a non-FDA approved treatment program.

While the medical community was well aware of the healing potential of ketamine, pharmaceutical companies were reluctant to make the investment. The average price-tag of a clinical trial for the FDA is $19m. There is certainly a market for the drug with countless Americans suffering from depression. The issue holding pharmaceutical companies back is related to patent law. In order to receive a patent, the proposed invention must be novel—and considering that ketamine has been around for nearly sixty years, that would be an impossible claim to make. Without patent protection, the multi-million dollar investment is bad economics for big pharma, even if the trials could provide relief for millions of Americans.

So why did Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the developer of a treatment method for depression based on ketamine, make the investment and receive FDA approval for its new drug Sprovato? The answer is because Sprovato is esketamine, a sufficiently different molecule from ketamine to be patentable. Certain molecules can be left-handed and have right-handed doppelgangers. While it is beyond the scope of this blog piece (and the ability of its author) to explain the difference between the two, esketamine is the left-handed version of ketamine’s right hand. The deviation between the molecules is a significant enough difference to pass the novelty requirement necessitated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While there is some debate as to whether esketamine is as effective as its counterpart, esketamine passed the FDA’s clinical trials and, for the most part, has been received as a viable alternative to ketamine treatment. This development could help legitimize the countless ketamine clinics that have emerged across the United States over the last few years, yielding a promising new alternative for those struggling with severe depression. At the same time, the story of ketamine raises questions about the roles of several actors in the health care system, specifically pharmaceutical companies, the FDA and the USPTO, in delaying the introduction of life saving medication in order to adhere their respective financial and regulatory requirements.

Health Supplements: The “Wild West” of FDA Regulations

February 10, 2019
Administrative Law, FDA, Food and Drug Law

Gabe Branco, MJLST Staffer 

At some point, we all have taken a multivitamin and/or some type of dietary supplement. They are hard to miss in most stores such as Target or Wal-Mart.  The bright colored packaging and unfulfilling promises of “losing weight quickly” without dieting or “building muscle” without working out catches everybody’s attention. Most people assume that these products, ironically labeled “health” or “dietary” supplements, must be safe to ingest due to placing them in the same category as a “drug,” or because they deem the supplement to be “natural.” However, the reason people are mistaken is because the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) chooses to differentiate “health” products from “drugs.”

Under the FDA’s current regulatory scheme, “health” supplements are treated more like special foods than drugs. Drugs are considered unsafe until proven safe through clinical trials. These trials must be done on all drugs, even those that are sold without a required prescription. The trials must show that the drug is both safe and effective for the specified use. Once the drug is approved, manufacturers are subject to carefully monitored conditions and packaging requirements. The packaging requirement includes conditions the drug has been proven to treat, known side effects, contraindications, and unsafe interactions with other drugs. After the drug has been manufactured and released to the public for consumption, the FDA follows up on any adverse effects consumers and their doctors report, along with any adverse effects reported by the manufacturer.

“Dietary” supplements, on the other hand, are seen as safe until proven unsafe, a stark contrast to their drug counterpart. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) defines “dietary” supplements as a category of food. As such, “dietary” supplements do not undergo the rigorous pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing approval and monitoring process that drugs do. DSHEA prohibits supplements from containing anything that may have “a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” when the supplement is used as directed on the label, or with regular use if there are no directions. While the regulation makes clear these supplements should not significantly or unreasonably expose the public to increased risk of harm, DSHEA fails to enforce the regulation with any preventative measures.

DSHEA effectively allows manufacturers to print any statement they wish on “dietary” supplement labels, so long as it is followed by the phrase “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” This practice is troublesome because the statement may suggest or claim outright that the “dietary” supplement treats symptoms or results in an outlandish outcome if taken. Even with the FDA warning, consumers would have little to no reason to assume that supplements placed on shelves everywhere could contain none of the listed ingredients or unknown ingredients that can cause adverse health effects.

The FDA has the authority to stop any production of “dietary” supplement if it is shown there is an increased risk of harm to the public. However, this only occurs after the release of the supplement and subsequent adverse effects impact consumers. Due to the lack of pre-manufacturing testing requirements, many “dietary” supplements contain germs, pesticides, or toxic heavy metals that may adversely impact consumers. In addition, many “dietary” supplements either do not contain what is listed on the label, contain more or less of what is listed on the label, or even contain ingredients not listed on the label. This issue could also stem from parties other than the manufacturers and sellers. Without any regulations pre-manufacturing, many suppliers of ingredients may mix or substitute the ingredients sold to manufacturers with less expensive or tainted filler ingredients.

These issues become problematic when an ingredient the FDA would deem a “drug” finds its way into a “dietary supplement.” Many male enhancers or muscle building “dietary” supplements have been found to contain substances much like Viagra or Cialis, which are regulated as “drugs.” In addition, certain weight loss supplements have been found to contain sibutraimine, which has been banned in the United States. All of these supplements were recalled by the FDA in a reactionary manner. However, in most instances a “dietary” supplement may contain a drug that has little to no known effects. Having little to no known effects makes it more difficult to detect if a “dietary” supplement indeed contains a drug, and if it then must undergo the more rigorous FDA drug requirements. By providing manufacturers and sellers a pathway to produce categorical “drugs” and distribute them to the public without undergoing the rigorous FDA drug testing processes, DSHEA potentially does more deregulation than regulation.

FDA regulations concerning “dietary” supplements should be as stringent as regulations governing drugs. The simplest solution would be to implement the same pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing procedures that are required of “drug” manufacturers into the “dietary” supplement realm. Doing so would fulfill DSHEA’s requirement that the “dietary” supplements do not cause a significant or unreasonable increase in risk of injury or illness. Additionally, this would allow the FDA to regulate “drugs” to its fullest potential.

Home | Contact Publishing Services | My Account