May 23, 2012

Food, Drug & Device Law Alert - FDA Proposes Performance Goals and User Fees for Biosimilars

The health care reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, includes a subtitle named the Biologics Price Competition and Innovations Act (BPCI Act) or the “biosimilars pathway,” to encourage competition in biotechnology drugs similar to the competition between brand name and generic pharmaceuticals. The FDA is expected to announce regulations governing the biosimilars pathway before the end of the year. In connection with the pathway, the FDA recently announced proposed user fees for biological products and its performance goals for reviewing applications and related steps leading to the approval of biological products.

The FDA’s performance goals for some of its review functions include gradually improving goals for the percentage of applications or supplements reviewed within a stated time from receipt. The FDA summarized these goals in the following tables:

 Table 1.–Performance Goals for Original and Resubmitted Applications and Supplements

Submission Cohort

Performance Goal

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

 

Within 10 Months of the Receipt Date

Original Biosimilar Biological Product Application Submissions

70%

70%

80%

85%

90%

 

Within 6 Months of Receipt Date

Resubmitted Original Biosimiliar Biological Production Applications

70%

70%

80%

85%

90%

 Table 2.–Performance Goals for Original and Resubmitted Supplements 

Submission

Performance Goal

Original Supplements with

Clinical Data

90% Within 10 Months of the Receipt Date

Resubmitted Supplements with

Clinical Data

90% Within 6 Months of the Receipt Date

Manufacturing Supplements

90% Within 6 Months of the Receipt Date

 The FDA proposed “first cycle” review performance goals for original biosimilar product applications and for supplements with clinical data. The goal is to inform the applicant of any substantive review issues and a planned review timeline within 74 days of receipt of the application or supplement for 90 percent of the applications or supplements.

 For proprietary names, FDA proposes to review 90 percent within 180 days for names submitted during biological product development and 90 percent within 90 days for names submitted with the application for approval.

The FDA’s goal is to respond within 30 days to 90 percent of appeals for disputes between the applicant and FDA staff over procedural or scientific matters related to the review of an application.

If FDA imposes a clinical hold on an application, its goal is to respond to 90 percent of applicants’ complete responses to a clinical hold within 30 days of receipt of a “complete response.”

 If an applicant requests the FDA to review a special protocol to assess whether it addresses scientific and regulatory requirements identified by the applicant, the FDA’s proposed goal is to provide a written response according to the following gradually increasing percentages: 

FY 2013

FY 2014

FY 2015

FY 2016

FY 2017

70%

70%

80%

85%

90%

The final set of goals relate to the time frames to hold different types of meetings defined in the commitment letter. The percentage goals for holding the meetings are the same as those in the chart immediately above. The defined types of meetings and time frames are:

  1. Biosimilar Initial Advisory Meeting – an initial assessment limited to a general discussion regarding the feasibility of obtaining a license for the product and, if feasible, the expectations for the development program – 90 days
  2. Biological Product Development (BPD) Type 1 – a meeting necessary for an otherwise stalled drug development program to proceed, a special protocol assessment, or a meeting to address an important safety issue – 30 days
  3. BPD Type 2 – a meeting to discuss a specific issue or to obtain specific advice from FDA for an ongoing development program – 75 days 
  4. BPD Type 3 – an in-depth data review and advice meeting – 120 days
  5. BPD Type 4 – a meeting to discuss the format and content of an application or supplement – 60 days

These goals are contingent on the FDA receiving $20 million (inflation adjusted) in non-user fee funds, plus the proposed user fee funds. FDA proposes four types of biosimilar user fees. The first three types are the same as those under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). For the current fiscal year, the PDUFA fees are an application fee of $1,841,500, an establishment fee of $520,100 and a product fee of $98,700. The fourth type of fee is a biosimilar product development (BPD) fee for products in development. The initial BPD fee is 10 percent of the application fee and would be due upon submission of an Investigational New Drug Application or within five days after FDA grants the first request for a BPD meeting related to the product. After the initial fee, the applicant would pay another BPD fee annually, due on or before October 1, until the application is filed or the sponsor withdraws from the development program for the product. Prior BPD payments will be credited to the application fee.

For the complete text of the FDA proposals, see www.tinyurl.com/7nl9mm8 and www.tinyurl.com/7956vk2

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Of Counsel

Nicolette R. Hudson is of counsel in the Columbus office of Barnes & Thornburg, where she is a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property Department. Ms. Hudson focuses her practice on trademark and copyright prosecution, counseling and enforcement, as well as trademark, unfair competition and copyright litigation.

614-628-1417

About the Author

Of Counsel

Hae Park-Suk is of counsel in the Washington, D.C., office and a member of the Intellectual Property Department. Ms. Park-Suk counsels clients on the selection, adoption, availability, and proper use of trademarks. Her practice consists of searching and clearing trademarks, prosecuting domestic and international trademark applications, managing extensive foreign trademark portfolios, assisting clients in planning and structuring their worldwide trademark strategies, assisting clients in protecting and enforcing their trademarks in the U.S. and worldwide, coordinating intellectual...

202-408-6919

Contributors

Partner

Lynn C. Tyler is a partner and registered patent lawyer in the firm’s Intellectual Property Department. Mr. Tyler helps innovative companies secure and preserve their market position and competitive advantage by navigating their way through the FDA to the marketplace and enforcing their intellectual property rights, which often must be protected against imitators who seek to reap where they have not sown. He litigates intellectual property matters and represents clients at virtually all stages of the process, including pre-litigation counseling, alternative dispute resolution,...

317-231-7392

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.