Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

DEA SCHEDULING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE APPROVAL DATE

Executive Summary

DEA SCHEDULING SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE APPROVAL DATE of a new drug for which patent extension is sought, Schering-Plough maintained in Oct. 7 comments on FDA's proposed regs for implementation of the patent term restoration law. The firm suggested that FDA's regs "be revised to include a recognition that an [NDA] is not considered approved for the marketing of a drug product under Title II of the Act until both FDA approval and DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration] scheduling have occured." Roche, in separate comments to FDA, also requested that the agency revise the proposed rule to take DEA scheduling delays into account when determining the regulatory review period of a product. The firm stated that "the rule should be clarified so that . . . delays encountered, for example, by drugs subject to scheduling pursuant to the Controlled Substances Act . . . fall within the 'regulatory review period.'" Recently, both Schering and Roche have had products for which marketing was delayed by DEA scheduling. Both products, Roche's Versed (midazolam) and Schering's Dormalin (quazepam) were scheduled in February, two months after their December 1985 approvals. The proposed reg, published in the July 11 Federal Register, defines the approval date of a product, for purposes of determining patent term restoration, as "the date FDA notifies the applicant in writing that the application is approved." While the proposed reg distinguishes between an approval letter and an approvable letter ("which requires the applicant to take further substantive actions to meet certain conditions or supply additional information prior to marketing"), it does not specifically address marketing delays caused by DEA scheduling. In a recent legal dispute regarding the approval date of Norwich Eaton's Buprenex, the Ohio Federal Court ruled that the NDA was approved on the date of DEA scheduling. The March 3 ruling stated that because final labeling must include the DEA scheduling, the drug was not approved until it was scheduled ("The Pink Sheet" March 10, p. 3). Commenting on the due diligence section of the proposed reg, Schering noted that FDA has included several specific factors, such as "the length of the regulatory review period for comparable products, . . . which it considers relevant to" an assessment of due diligence. "Although certain of these factors may be relevant on particular occasions," Schering stated, "we consider the inclusion of these specific factors within the regulations to be inappropriate." Should "the agency decide to retain the list of specific relevant factors as part of its regulations, certain of these should nonetheless be deleted on an individual basis," Schering said. "The first of these is 'the length of the regulatory review period for comparable products.'" The firm maintained that "comparisons made on such a basis are entirely without validity since each regulatory review period is unique unto itself . . . and variations in both industry and agency resources . . . contribute to the actual length of a regulatory review period."

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

ID1128360

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel