CHASE’s GENERIC NIFEDIPINE MARKET EXCLUSIVITY CHALLENGED BY KALIPHARMA
CHASE's GENERIC NIFEDIPINE MARKET EXCLUSIVITY CHALLENGED BY KALIPHARMA in a suit against FDA filed in D.C. federal court on May 29. In its complaint, Kalipharma seeks a court judgement revoking the six-month exclusivity granted to Chase for generic nifedipine (Pfizer's Procardia) 10 mg capsules and requests a court order requiring FDA to issue to Kalipharma an amended approval letter with "an appropriate new effective date for approval" of its own generic nifedipine. FDA has 60 days to respond to Kalipharma's complaint. The suit claims that Chase is not entitled to 180-day exclusivity because Chase's ANDA was not "substantially complete" at the time of its initial submission to FDA in December 1987 and, therefore, should not be counted ahead of Kalipharma's March 25, 1988 application. FDA approved Chase's ANDA July 10, 1989 ("The Pink Sheet" July 24, 1989, T&G-7). The approval is effective July 4, 1990 or at a time determined by the New Jersey federal court that heard a Pfizer infringement claim against Chase. The suit is still pending. "The action of FDA in finding that Chase submitted a 'substantially complete' ANDA for the product prior to Kalipharma was...erroneous and unwarranted by the facts," the complaint argues, "and upon information and belief, was the result of oversight or mistake by the person who reviewed Chase's ANDA at the time of filing." Kalipharma's ANDA for the product was approved on April 28, 1989 with an effective date delayed until not earlier than 180 days after either: (a) FDA receives notice from Chase of the first commercial marketing of the product under the previous ANDA; or (b) the date of a court decision in the suit against Chase holding the [Procardia] "684" patent invalid or not infringed. The patent is due to expire Jan. 1, 1991. Pfizer's patent infringement action against Kalipharma's ANDA for the product was settled by the entry of a final judgement "on consent" on Jan. 5, 1990, following the execution of a patent sublicense agreement between Pfizer and Kalipharma dated Jan. 4, 1990, according to the suit. Kalipharma contends that Chase's initial ANDA was not substantially complete because the bioequivalence study included in the application was deficient "for reasons that should have been apparent on its face at the time of filing." The bioequivalence study showed: (1) the 90% confidence interval ratio for the Chase product's Cmax to that of Procardia was "far outside the plus or minus 20% range acceptable under current FDA review procedures"; and (2) that Chase submitted two sets of data analysis for its human test subjects, but had omitted data for five test subjects in the second analysis because they 'exhibited anomalous behavior after administration with the reference'," Kalipharma stated. The complaint alleges that "the fact that Chase submitted a second set of analysis data for its human test subjects...also shows that Chase was attempting, albeit unsuccessfully, to overcome the deficiencies of the data that resulted from the complete test analysis for all subjects." Such activity "should have 'rung a bell' as soon as FDA reviewed the Chase ANDA." The complaint also notes that Chase submitted a second study on Oct. 11, 1988, that was found unacceptable by FDA on Feb. 19, 1989.
You may also be interested in...
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 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
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