Food And Drug Administration Officials Research Articles

An Outbreak Investigation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Infections in the United States Linked to Crabmeat Imported from Venezuela: 2018.

Vibrio parahaemolyticus is the leading cause of seafood-related foodborne illness globally. In 2018, the U.S. federal, state, and local public health and regulatory partners investigated a multistate outbreak of V. parahaemolyticus infections linked to crabmeat that resulted in 26 ill people and nine hospitalizations. State and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) laboratories recovered V. parahaemolyticus, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes isolates from crabmeat samples collected from various points of distribution and conducted phylogenetic analyses of whole-genome sequencing data. Federal, state, and local partners conducted traceback investigations to determine the source of crabmeat. Multiple Venezuelan processors that supplied various brands of crabmeat were identified, but a sole firm was not confirmed as the source of the outbreak. Travel restrictions between the United States and Venezuela prevented FDA officials from conducting on-site inspections of cooked crabmeat processors. Based on investigation findings, partners developed public communications advising consumers not to eat crabmeat imported from Venezuela and placed potentially implicated firms on import alerts. While some challenges limited the scope of the investigation, epidemiologic, traceback, and laboratory evidence identified the contaminated food and country of origin, and contributed to public health and regulatory actions, preventing additional illnesses. This multistate outbreak illustrates the importance of adhering to appropriate food safety practices and regulations for imported seafood.

Great Trees Require Strong Roots: Evaluating Data and Delegation Doctrine Underlying Proposed Reforms to FDA's Accelerated Approval Program.

In "Missing the Forest for the Trees: Aduhelm, Accelerated Approvals & the Agency," Dr. Matthew Herder argues that agency capture and politicized discretion drive delays in confirmatory trials of accelerated approval drugs amongst other concerns at US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In highlighting this important problem and offering nuanced insight into agency workings based in part on interviews with twenty-three unnamed FDA officials and a three-drug case study, Dr. Herder suggests two innovative solutions. However, amidst broader debates balancing agency expertise, data, and delegation, these proposed policy solutions would benefit from more corroborative evidence and consideration of institutional advantages within constitutional limits.

Criminal Action Against Drug Counterfeiters: Assessment of the FDA Office of Criminal Investigation Database 2016 Through 2021.

The objective of this study was to describe law enforcement oversight of counterfeit drugs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States from 2016 through 2021. The FDA Office of Criminal Investigation database with hyperlinked press releases of enforcement actions was used to identify legal action against drug counterfeiters. Incidences of counterfeit drugs sold via Internet, how often they were obtained without a prescription, the most prevalent counterfeit drugs, the countries where counterfeit operations occurred, and the scale of counterfeit operations were assessed. There were 130 unique enforcement actions against counterfeiting organizations and individuals. Overall, 64.6% of enforcement actions involved counterfeit products sold over the Internet, in 84.6% of actions counterfeit medications could be obtained without a prescription, and in 33.1% of actions the products were sold as dietary supplements. Sexual dysfunction, opioid, stimulant, anabolic muscle building, benzodiazepine, and dermatologic drugs were most counterfeited. China was the most prevalent country to produce counterfeit drugs followed by India, Turkey, Pakistan, and Russia. Counterfeiting operations were large with tens of millions of pills and hundreds of millions of dollars in sales. Health outcomes for counterfeit drugs were rarely discussed in the press releases and not all press releases had data for each parameter of interest. This is the first report assessing enforcement actions against drug counterfeiters from the FDA Office of Criminal Investigation. The FDA is actively involved in identifying and prosecuting counterfeit drug rings, but the number of enforcement actions is smaller than the size of the problem.

Human Abuse Liability Assessment of Tobacco and Nicotine Products: Approaches for Meeting Current Regulatory Recommendations.

Many regulatory bodies now recommend that tobacco product manufacturers provide information regarding new tobacco products' abuse liability to inform regulatory authorization of currently marketed tobacco products or new product applications (including premarket tobacco product applications in the United States). In addition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends including this information as part of modified risk tobacco product applications. Regulators, including FDA, and many public health officials and researchers consider abuse liability assessment a model which predicts the likelihood that the use of the tobacco product would result in addiction and be used repeatedly or even sporadically resulting in undesirable effects. Abuse liability of a new, potentially reduced harm product can also inform its ability to substitute completely for more harmful tobacco products. While many methods exist, no standard tobacco product abuse liability assessment has been established. The purpose of this review is to provide background information and practical recommendations for human abuse liability testing methods to meet tobacco regulatory needs. A combination of nicotine test product pharmacokinetic, subjective effect and/or behavioral response, and physiological response data relative to comparator products with known abuse liability satisfies some regulatory requirements. Implications: This review provides a practical inspection of the current, international regulatory recommendations for abuse liability assessment of tobacco and regulatory review of such information within the United States and also recommends study designs and methods for abuse liability testing of tobacco products based on scientific and regulatory knowledge. Given that tobacco product abuse liability testing is of increasing interest to regulatory bodies globally, especially with the emergence of novel tobacco products, this timely work provides background and functional recommendations for tobacco product abuse liability testing.

Use of Real-World Evidence for Regulatory Approval and Coverage of Medical Devices: A Landscape Assessment

ObjectivesTo enhance the generalizability of the evidence it reviews, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has encouraged manufacturers to expand the submission of real-world evidence (RWE). The extent to which this evidence, which is generated outside of research settings, can support decision making remains unclear. We described the current use of RWE for medical devices, assessed manufacturers’ challenges in generating and using it for regulatory and coverage decisions, and identified opportunities to expand its use. MethodsWe conducted 27 solo and group interviews with FDA officials and representatives of device manufacturers, payers, and health technology assessment organizations. All interviews used a semistructured protocol and were transcribed to allow thematic analysis. ResultsAccessing and linking real-world data sources, identifying unique devices, capturing longitudinal data, limited staff expertise, and uncertain return on investment have hampered efforts to use real-world data. Many companies in our sample were conducting research using real-world data, but none had submitted RWE as the primary evidence supporting a premarket approval. FDA guidance was helpful, but regulatory requirements remained ambiguous and examples of successful regulatory decisions based on RWE were limited. Payers mainly used RWE to supplement experimental evidence in coverage decisions, evaluated both types of evidence in similar ways, and had concerns about the rigor of RWE. ConclusionsTechnical challenges may slow efforts to generate and use RWE in the near term. Additional regulatory guidance and examples, greater use of rigorous study designs and analytic methods, and continued stakeholder engagement could accelerate the use of RWE.

ENGAGE and EMERGE: Truth and consequences?

The potential benefit of the anti‐amyloid drug aducanumab based on results of recent EMERGE and ENGAGE clinical trials has generated great controversy and has very important implications for the future of anti‐amyloid drug therapies. The two trials of 18‐month duration were done in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early dementia. The ENGAGE trial showed no benefit while the high‐dose EMERGE trial initially also showed no benefit but with longer follow‐up there was a significant positive benefit. A recent review form the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Committee was negative while the FDA Office of Neurological Drugs was positive and the statisticians negative. This has generated debate about whether the drug should be approved, disapproved, require a new clinical trial, or approved for a subsample only. The implications for treating both MCI and Alzheimer's disease (AD) patients with anti‐amyloid drugs is very substantial as well as the brain amyloid‐AD‐dementia hypothesis.

Lessons Relearned? H1N1, COVID-19, and Vaccination Planning.

Lessons Relearned? H1N1, COVID-19, and Vaccination Planning.

Clinical Pharmacology in Women's Health: Current Status and Opportunities.

Clinical Pharmacology in Women's Health: Current Status and Opportunities.

Application of PBPK Modeling and Simulation for Regulatory Decision Making and Its Impact on US Prescribing Information: An Update on the 2018-2019 Submissions to the US FDA's Office of Clinical Pharmacology.

Since 2016, results from physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) analyses have been routinely found in the clinical pharmacology section of regulatory applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Clinical Pharmacology published a commentary summarizing the application of PBPK modeling in the submissions it received between 2008 and 2017 and its impact on prescribing information. In this commentary, we provide an update on the application of PBPK modeling in submissions received between 2018 and 2019 and highlight a few notable examples.

In Case You Haven't Heard…

No more illegal unapproved “hangover cures,” says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Last week, it sent warning letters to seven companies selling unapproved products labeled as dietary supplements that claim to cure, treat, mitigate or prevent hangovers. The warning letters were issued to: Double Wood LLC, Ebnsol Inc., Vita Heaven LLC (doing business as Hangover Heaven), Happy Hour Vitamins, LES Labs, Mind, Body & Coal LLC and Purple Biosciences LLC. “Dietary supplements that claim to cure, treat, mitigate or prevent hangovers could potentially harm consumers, especially young adults,” said Steven Tave, director of the FDA's Office of Dietary Supplement Programs. “Consumers may get the false impression that using these products can prevent or mitigate health problems caused by excessive drinking. Dietary supplements are not a substitute for responsibly limiting one's alcohol consumption.” The FDA urges consumers to be “cautious of products marketed and sold online with unproven claims to prevent, treat, mitigate or cure diseases,” and advises them to talk to their doctors. That's a good idea. However, we are trying to imagine the scenario in which a 20‐something goes to a doctor to ask for a good hangover cure. Or someone of any age. The FDA stopped short of recommending that people drink less, eat before or with drinking, or — heaven forbid — not drink at all.

From Intention to Action: Operationalizing AGA Diversity Policy to Combat Racism and Health Disparities in Gastroenterology

From Intention to Action: Operationalizing AGA Diversity Policy to Combat Racism and Health Disparities in Gastroenterology

Coming changes to mammography standards: With its proposed amendments to update mammography rules, the US Food and Drug Administration hopes to empower patients and health care providers.

Coming changes to mammography standards: With its proposed amendments to update mammography rules, the US Food and Drug Administration hopes to empower patients and health care providers.

Pharmaceutical Drugs of Uncertain Value, Lifecycle Regulation at the US Food and Drug Administration, and Institutional Incumbency.

Policy Points The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has in recent years allowed onto the market several drugs with limited evidence of safety and effectiveness, provided that manufacturers agree to carry out additional studies while the drugs are in clinical use.Studies suggest that these postmarketing requirements (PMRs) frequently lack transparency, are subject to delays, and fail to answer the questions of greatest clinical importance. Yet, none of the literature speaks directly to the challenges that the FDA—as a regulatory institution—encounters in enforcing PMRs.Through a series of interviews with FDA leadership, this article analyzes and situates those challenges in the midst of political threats to the FDA's public health mandate. ContextModern pharmaceutical regulation is premised on a rigorous examination of a drug's safety and effectiveness prior to its lawful sale. However, since the 1990s, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has gradually shifted to a model of “lifecycle” regulation that increasingly relies on postmarketing requirements (PMRs) to encourage studies of drug safety and effectiveness following regulatory approval. This article examines the range of legal, institutional, and political challenges that FDA faces in the context of lifecycle regulation.MethodsDocument‐based legal and policy analysis was combined with a set of semistructured interviews of current and former FDA officials (n = 23) in order to explore the implications of the FDA's use of PMRs. The median interview time per official was 61 minutes, with a range of 24 to 227 minutes. All of the officials interviewed occupied positions of leadership and influence within the FDA, such as directors of an FDA center or office, key legal counsel on agency‐wide policy initiatives, and the commissioner of the FDA.FindingsInsufficient resources and coordination within the FDA, inadequate legal authorities, and the political economy of withdrawing an approved indication in the face of opposition from companies and patients all contribute to the observed shortcomings in the FDA's use and enforcement of PMRs. Further, the FDA is fully aware of these challenges, yet is seemingly resigned to and resistant to criticism of its use of PMRs.ConclusionsThis study of the FDA's shift toward lifecycle regulation reveals not simply an agency in transition, but rather an agency on guard against a set of larger political threats to its mandate. This can be characterized as a state of institutional incumbency in which the agency is engaged in an effort to reproduce key features of the regulatory system—in concert with regulated industries and others—while simultaneously sanctioning significant changes to the regulatory standards the FDA has long applied, to the detriment of public health.

An Integrated Bioinformatics and Quantitative Modeling Approach to Investigate Potential Claims of Oral Generic Drug Product Bioinequivalence: Introduction.

An Integrated Bioinformatics and Quantitative Modeling Approach to Investigate Potential Claims of Oral Generic Drug Product Bioinequivalence: Introduction.

Decision Science for Generic Drug Development and Review.

Decision Science for Generic Drug Development and Review.

FDA Approves Powerful Opioid Amid Controversy Over Risks

FDA Approves Powerful Opioid Amid Controversy Over Risks

Regenerative Medicine Therapies for Rare Diseases.

The field of regenerative medicine is growing rapidly with the introduction of new therapies that have the potential to treat and cure serious medical conditions, including rare diseases, for which there are no available treatments. In the United States, the development of novel medical products is regulated and guided by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As scientific and technological advances are discovered and adopted by the medical industrial enterprise, the FDA’s implementation of policies that create a climate conducive to safe development and rapid availability of novel medical products is one of the pillars which support the Agency’s mission of protecting and promoting the public health. With advancements in cell modifications and tissue engineering, innovative creation of biomaterials, adoption of three-dimensional bioprinting, and rapid development of human genome editing technologies, the need for Agency’s work in ensuring that its science-based policies remain relevant and helpful in facilitating the availability of new treatments to the most vulnerable populations of patients becomes more pressing than ever before.In December 2016, Congress amended section 506 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act [21 U.S.C. 356] by adding a new section 506(g), which defines the categories of products considered to be regenerative medicine therapies. As further described by FDA [1], regenerative medicine therapies are considered to include cell therapies, therapeutic tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any such therapies, as well as gene therapies, including genetically modified cells that lead to a durable modification of cells or tissues. The development and approval of regenerative medicine therapies are regulated by FDA’s Office of Tissues and Advanced Therapies (OTAT) in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER).In this review article, we present practical considerations for investigating regenerative medicine therapies intended for the treatment of rare diseases. The material presented may be useful to researchers who are undertaking the challenging task of finding and delivering new treatments for those in need.

Food and drug administration takes steps to curb teen vaping.

Calling the rise in e-cigarette use among youth “nothing short of an epidemic proportion of growth,” the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in September announced an aggressive enforcement strategy to target sales to youth along with child-friendly marketing. During a briefing highlighting their latest steps, FDA officials noted that their conclusion about epidemic use is based not just on the results of the agency’s enforcement actions but also on recent sales trends; news coverage; growing concerns among children, parents, and educators; and data that will be finalized and released in the coming months. Also, in September, the FDA launched an expanded version of its Real Cost public education campaign aimed at preventing youth e-cigarette use. That campaign will bring the messages to online sites accessed by teens as well as high school bathrooms.

Advancing Regulatory Science With Computational Modeling for Medical Devices at the FDA's Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories.

Protecting and promoting public health is the mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), which regulates medical devices marketed in the U.S., envisions itself as the world's leader in medical device innovation and regulatory science–the development of new methods, standards, and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality, and performance of medical devices. Traditionally, bench testing, animal studies, and clinical trials have been the main sources of evidence for getting medical devices on the market in the U.S. In recent years, however, computational modeling has become an increasingly powerful tool for evaluating medical devices, complementing bench, animal and clinical methods. Moreover, computational modeling methods are increasingly being used within software platforms, serving as clinical decision support tools, and are being embedded in medical devices. Because of its reach and huge potential, computational modeling has been identified as a priority by CDRH, and indeed by FDA's leadership. Therefore, the Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories (OSEL)—the research arm of CDRH—has committed significant resources to transforming computational modeling from a valuable scientific tool to a valuable regulatory tool, and developing mechanisms to rely more on digital evidence in place of other evidence. This article introduces the role of computational modeling for medical devices, describes OSEL's ongoing research, and overviews how evidence from computational modeling (i.e., digital evidence) has been used in regulatory submissions by industry to CDRH in recent years. It concludes by discussing the potential future role for computational modeling and digital evidence in medical devices.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Labeling for Products Approved by the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products of the US Food and Drug Administration (2010-2014).

To review the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in medical product labeling granted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for new molecular entities and biologic license applications by the FDA Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP) between January 2010 and December 2014, to elucidate challenges faced by OHOP for approving PRO labeling, and to understand challenges faced by drug manufacturers to include PRO end points in oncology clinical trials. FDA Drug Approval Reports by Month were reviewed to obtain the number of new molecular entities and biologic license applications approved from 2010 to 2014. Drugs approved by the FDA OHOP during this period were selected for further review, focusing on brand and generic name; approval date; applicant; indication; PRO labeling describing treatment benefit, measures, end point status, and significant results; FDA reviewer feedback on PRO end points; and study design of registration trials. First in class, priority review, fast track, orphan drug, or accelerated approval status was retrieved for selected oncology drugs from 2011 to 2014. Descriptive analyses were performed by using Microsoft Excel 2010. Of 160 drugs approved by the FDA (2010-2014), 40 were approved by OHOP. Three (7.5%) of the 40 received PRO-related labeling (abiraterone acetate, ruxolitinib phosphate, and crizotinib). Compared with nononcology drugs (2011-2014), oncology drugs were more likely to be orphan and first in class. The majority of oncology drug reviews by FDA were fast track, priority, or accelerated. Although symptoms and functional decrements are common among patients with cancer, PRO labeling is rare in the United States, likely because of logistical hurdles and oncology study design. Recent developments within the FDA OHOP to capture PROs in oncology studies for the purpose of product labeling are encouraging.