Cheers to 80 Years: Celebrating the Anniversary of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Eighty years ago today, President Roosevelt signed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”). In recognition of this anniversary, EBG reviews how the FD&C Act came to be, how it has evolved, and how the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) is enforcing its authority under the FD&C Act to address the demands of rapidly evolving technology.
I’m Just a Bill
The creation of the FD&C Act stems from a sober event in American History. In 1937, a Tennessee drug company marketed elixir sulfanilamide for use in children as a new sulfa drug. The diethylene glycol (“DEG”) used as a solvent for the elxir is poisonous to humans. The untested drug killed over 100 people, including children. The public’s response to the disaster prompted and ensured the passage of the FD&C Act in 1938, which included the creation of the process known as pre-market approval, requiring that new drugs be proven safe before going on the market.
Growing Pains and Milestones
Since 1938, FDA’s jurisdiction has expanded as various public health emergencies and other challenges faced by the health care system have caught national attention. Among the many legislative acts passed over the years, the following are of particular relevance to current developments:
(1) Food Additives Amendment of 1958, addressing safety concerns over new food additives and implementing generally recognized as safe (“GRAS”) requirements;
(2) Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (the “Hatch-Waxman” Act), establishing the modern generic drug approval system;
(3) Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, granting FDA authority to require nutrition labels on most foods, and compelling FDA-compliant nutrient and health claims;
(4) Safe Medical Device Amendments of 1990, giving FDA post-market device surveillance authority and device tracking capability at the user level;
(5) Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, defining “dietary supplement” and establishing a regulatory framework for such products;
(6) Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, making changes to several FDA regulatory schemes, including biologics, devices, pharmacy compounding, food safety and labeling, and standards for medical products;
(7) Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, authorizing FDA to require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (“REMS”) to ensure that drug benefits outweigh risks;
(8) Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, expanding FDA authority over manufacturing, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products;
(9) Drug Quality and Security Act of 2013, expanding FDA’s authority to regulate the manufacturing of compounded drugs as a reaction to a meningitis outbreak caused by contaminated compounded drug products; and
(10) 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, creating the Breakthrough Devices Program, the Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy Designation, and exempting certain software products from the definition of “medical device.”
An Old Dog Learning New Tricks
Over the last few years, FDA has felt the impact of and the need to respond to several societal developments. The country is calling for the government to address drug prices and to gain better control over access to drugs containing controlled substances, such as opioids. The surge in development of new technology has forced FDA to adapt its historically rigid device regulatory structure to accommodate innovations such as regenerative medicine therapies. A renewed public focus on the nutritional value of food requires updates to nutritional labeling and food safety regulations, and the new “vaping” trend raises questions surrounding the sale and promotion of new tobacco products. Across all of these developments, there is a trend toward more focused regulatory pathways that take into account the particular needs and challenges of specific product categories. Many of these changes are either required or authorized by legislation, such as the 21st Century Cures Act; and statements by the agency, as well as numerous new draft and final guidance documents, give indications as to where FDA is headed in the next few years.
Increasing Market Competition and Access: FDA is focused on increasing market competition for and patient access to prescription drugs. In furtherance of its Drug Competition Action Plan, the agency published a draft guidance to address the exploitation of REMS and prevent problematic pay-for-delay schemes. In the same vein, FDA implemented a Biosimilar Innovation Plan to facilitate development and approval of biosimilars, hoping to increasing patient access to costly biologics. Last week, FDA also withdrew its draft guidance on biosimilar analytical studies, announcing intent to issue a revised draft guidance in the future.
Drug Development Efficiency: Recent FDA publications also suggest that the agency is prioritizing a more streamlined drug development process. In February 2018, FDA released five guidance documents emphasizing a faster, patient-focused approach for drug development for neurological conditions. In March 2018, FDA updated its benefit-risk framework to further incorporate patient experience into the agency’s regulatory decision-making process. FDA published the first of four of its patient-focused drug development guidances on June 13, 2018.
In response to the opioid crisis, FDA is focusing heavily on changes to the drug compounding and controlled substance space. In March 2018, FDA published a draft guidance on evaluation of bulk drug substances nominated for inclusion in the 503(B) bulks list, requiring a showing of clinical need. FDA also plans to issue notice of proposed regulations for outsourcing facilities later in 2018. FDA held a Patient-Focused Drug Development Meeting for Opioid Use Disorder in April 2018 and published an associated draft guidance on buprenorphine drug development and clinical trial design issues. We expect to see more FDA movement on drug development as the year progresses, particularly with respect to opioid use disorder treatment therapies.
Streamlining the Device Pathway: FDA continues to implement changes to the regulatory pathway for manufacturers to bring their devices to market. Per a draft guidance released in April 2018, the agency is expanding the abbreviated 510(k) pathway by creating a voluntary option for manufacturers when there is no acceptable predicate for a new device, but there is another device with the same intended use. Manufacturers will be able to use the similar device as a “predicate” and demonstrate how their product conforms to newly-developed device-specific objective performance criteria. While these performance criteria are still under development, they will eventually pave the way for more manufacturers to bring their products to market faster.
Precision Medicine: The national focus on precision medicine has encouraged many manufacturers to develop new products that incorporate genomics-based technology. FDA is encouraging development of next generation sequencing (“NGS”)-based tests, which analyze larger sequences of the human genome, if not the whole genome, for a variety of different genetic variants. FDA released two final guidance documents in April 2018, making recommendations on (1) the design and development of a NGS-based test for germline diseases and (2) use of public human genetic variant databases to support clinical validity of NGS-based tests and routes for establishing and justifying algorithms for variant annotation and filtering.
FDA is also evaluating its approach to the regulation of gene therapy products. Commissioner Gottlieb stated that the agency is at “an inflection point” with gene therapy thanks to increased reliability of vectors. The focus has shifted from the efficacy of gene therapy to its durability, i.e. the long term effects of the treatment. Recently, Commissioner Gottlieb announced FDA’s intent to start developing gene therapy guidance for products intended to treat hemophilia.
Regenerative Medicine: In efforts to implement its comprehensive policy framework for regenerative medicine and respond to certain provisions of the 21stCentury Cures Act, FDA intends to create an expedited regulatory pathway for novel regenerative medicine therapies. FDA is also actively enforcing against stem cell clinics promoting certain regenerative medicine therapies without approval and in violation of current good manufacturing practices.
Software and Artificial Intelligence (“AI”): In acknowledgment of the current “digital age,” FDA published a Digital Health Innovation Action Plan. In April 2018, FDA released two policy documents – (1) a working model for the Digital Health Software Pre-Certification (Pre-Cert) Program Pilot and (2) guidance on regulation of digital health products with both FDA-regulated and unregulated functions. Also in 2018, FDA authorized the marketing of AI-based clinical decision software (“CDS”) that functions to alert specialists when computed tomography (“CT”) indicates a potential stroke, as well as an AI algorithm for detection of wrist fractures.
Food Safety: Since the Food Safety Modernization Act (“FSMA”) was passed, sixteen rules and dozens of guidances have been released (many of which have been in the last two years), bringing the law close to full implementation. These rules and guidances address the mandatory preventive controls for food manufacturing facilities; mandatory product safety standards; FDA’s new mandatory food recall authority; and the initial required inspection of over 600 foreign facilities and the subsequent requirement to “double those inspections every year for the next five years.” In light of the recent high profile foodborne illness outbreaks at chain restaurants and attributed to romaine lettuce, the agency is hoping the full implementation of the FSMA rules, in tandem with keeping food safety as a high priority for the agency, will minimize the risk of future outbreaks.
Nutrition: In 2018, the agency launched the FDA Nutrition Innovation Strategy, which, in addition to implementing new Nutrition Facts Label and Menu Labeling requirements, demonstrates that the agency is looking for more ways to modernize food labels and standards of food product identity to help consumers make healthier decisions. FDA also plans to release short-term voluntary sodium targets for food products in 2019.
Food Labeling: FDA issued a guidance in 2016 on the use of the term “healthy” in food labeling, and continues today to seek stakeholder input on how to redefine the term in such a way as will keep up with scientific advancements and help consumers understand what is in their food products. FDA is also reviewing stakeholder input on how to define “natural,” and indicated in March 2018 that the agency will “have more to say on the issue soon.”
Dietary Supplements: The dietary supplement industry is a growing industry, and consumers are more interested in alternative products to promote wellness lifestyles. The industry is considered by some to still be the “wild wild west” in terms of enforcement, but FDA seems to be putting its foot down on companies making unsubstantiated claims about dietary supplement products or making claims that would otherwise classify the product as a drug.
D. Tobacco Products
Using its authority to regulate all tobacco products, FDA is addressing the rise in the use of vapes, vaporizers, pens and electronic cigarettes by children. In April 2018, Commissioner Gottlieb announced the intent to issue new enforcement actions against bad actors, as well as to implement a Youth Tobacco Prevention Plan, seeking to reduce the amount of children exposed to e-cigarettes and vapes and those manufactures who target children with enticing flavors. In May 2018, Commissioner Gottlieb stated “If you target kids, then we’re going to target you.” FDA is also in the process of developing guidance for the development and regulation of e-cigarettes generally, suggesting that e-cigarettes could fall into the over-the-counter pathway due to their potential role in smoking cessation, and is reviewing the toxicology of the products.
Andrew Do, a Summer Associate (not admitted to the practice of law) in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, contributed to the preparation of this post