Washington, USA- January13, 2020: FDA Sign outside their headquarters in Washington. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the USA.

COVID-19 and the FDA Emergency Use Authorization Power

Cross-posted from COVID-19 and The Law, where it originally appeared on November 10, 2020. 

By Anne Kapnick

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for protecting public health by regulating the production, distribution, and consumption of food, cosmetics and drugs. In the healthcare arena (the focus of this post), the FDA strives to ensure the safety, efficacy, and security of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. The FDA also ensures that the “public get[s] the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products and foods to maintain and improve their health.” This blog post provides an overview of the FDA’s emergency authorization powers, analyzes the extent of their usage in the COVID-19 pandemic, and concludes by flagging potential concerns regarding the FDA’s management of this vast power.

Click here to read the full post on COVID-19 and The Law.

Syringe and money.

Why the Government Shouldn’t Pay People to Get Vaccinated Against COVID-19

By Ana Santos Rutschman

As several pharmaceutical companies approach the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking authorization to bring COVID-19 vaccines to market, concerns about vaccine mistrust cloud the prospects of imminent vaccination efforts across the globe. These concerns have prompted some commentators to suggest that governments may nudge vaccine uptake by paying people to get vaccinated against COVID-19.

This post argues that, even if potentially viable, this idea is undesirable against the backdrop of a pandemic marked by the intertwined phenomena of health misinformation and mistrust in public health authorities. Even beyond the context of COVID-19, paying for vaccination is dubious public health policy likely to backfire in terms of (re)building public trust in vaccines.

Read More

Restaurant closed sign - "we cannot wait to see you again. stay safe."

Under an EUA, Can Businesses Require Employees and Customers to Get Vaccinated?

By Dorit Rubinstein Reiss

As promising data emerges for COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trials, two manufacturers of these vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, have submitted requests for Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA).

An EUA would allow vaccines to be used before full FDA approval, during the time that COVID-19 is an emergency.

The promise of a safe, effective vaccine offers a glimmer of hope not just for individuals around the world affected by the pandemic, but also for businesses large and small that have struggled with closures and public health-related changes to operations. A natural question that has emerged as private businesses contemplate a return to normalcy is whether they can mandate that employees and customers receive these vaccines authorized for emergency use.

Read More

Syringe being filled from a vial. Vaccine concept illustration.

What Does the Good News on the Vaccine Front Mean?

By Dorit Rubinstein Reiss

In the past weeks, three companies in advanced stages of COVID-19 vaccine trials reported good news. Moderna and Pfizer reported, respectively, 94.5% and 95% effectiveness of their mRNA vaccines in preventing symptomatic disease and similarly high effectiveness in preventing severe disease.

This was shortly followed by news that the AstraZeneca vaccine had over 70% effectiveness, and 90% with a different dosage regime.

The companies have also reported a favorable safety profile, with no serious harms attributed to the vaccine, though the vaccines do cause a high rate of temporary and unpleasant side effects, including local reactions and temporary flu-like symptoms.

Pfizer has already applied for an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA, and I would expect Moderna and AstraZeneca to follow suit.

What does this mean? First, a note of caution. These are reports from the companies; the FDA has not yet finished examining the data. Examination may raise questions. The data submitted has to pass dual review.

Read More

books

Monthly Round-Up of What to Read on Pharma Law and Policy

By Ameet SarpatwariBeatrice Brown, Neeraj Patel, and Aaron S. Kesselheim

Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues.

Below are the citations for papers identified from the month of October. The selections feature topics ranging from a commentary calling for reconsideration of the FDA’s risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) program for mifepristone, to an analysis of clinical development times for biosimilars seeking FDA approval, to an editorial describing the challenges of using the Defense Production Act to address drug shortages. A full posting of abstracts/summaries of these articles may be found on our website.

Read More

Pill pack.

Fortifying the US Pharmaceutical Supply Chain

By Laura Karas

The COVID-19 pandemic triggered supply chain disruption across the globe. The United States, in particular, is susceptible to interruptions in the supply chain for pharmaceutical drugs because many of the raw materials, active pharmaceutical ingredients, and manufacturing processes needed to produce domestically marketed prescription drugs have been outsourced beyond U.S. borders.

Is it time to bring some of these processes back to our shores? This post will demystify the pharmaceutical supply chain and explore some key considerations as we head toward 2021.

Read More

Map of United States made up of pills.

Monthly Round-Up of What to Read on Pharma Law and Policy

By Ameet SarpatwariBeatrice Brown, Neeraj PatelandAaron S. Kesselheim

Each month, members of the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) review the peer-reviewed medical literature to identify interesting empirical studies, policy analyses, and editorials on health law and policy issues.

Below are the citations for papers identified from the month of September. The selections feature topics ranging from commentaries on political pressures and questions of integrity facing the FDA, to a critique of the financial incentive structure for antibiotic development, to an estimation of how much NHS England would spend if it paid U.S. Medicare Part D prices. A full posting of abstracts/summaries of these articles may be found on our website.

Read More

Washington, USA- January13, 2020: FDA Sign outside their headquarters in Washington. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the USA.

Experts Question FDA Approval of Remdesivir for COVID-19

By Sravya Chary

Experts are calling into question the recent decision of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve remdesivir (sold under the brand name Veklury) for the treatment of COVID-19 and casting scrutiny as to whether the decision is truly in the public’s interest.

Evaluating and approving an effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2 virus has been a top priority for regulatory authorities, especially in the absence of a viable vaccine. On October 22, 2020, the FDA approved Veklury for the treatment of COVID-19 in adult and pediatric patients requiring hospitalization.

The FDA cited three randomized, controlled clinical trials as the evidence supporting its decision to approve Veklury. The findings from the three studies were as follows: first, that the median time to recovery from COVID-19 was 5 days sooner in the Veklury group compared to the placebo group. Second, that the odds of a research subject’s COVID-19 symptoms improving were statistically significantly higher in the five-day treatment group than the standard of care group (the 10-day treatment group did not show a statistically significant difference from the standard of care group). Third, that there were no statistically significant differences in recovery or mortality rates between subjects in the five-day Veklury group versus the ten-day Veklury group.

Read More

Society or population, social diversity. Flat cartoon vector illustration.

The Cost of Exclusion in Psychedelic Research

By Xinyuan Chen, Mackenzie Bullard, Christy Duan, Jamilah R. George, Terence Ching, Stephanie Kilpatrick, Jordan Sloshower, and Monnica Williams

In the last two decades, researchers have started to reexamine psychedelics for their therapeutic potential. Though initial results seem promising, the research has a significant shortcoming: the lack of racial and ethnic diversity among research teams and study participants.

In the 1960s, psychedelic substances such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline were a major part of American counterculture. Less well-known is that, concurrently, researchers were studying potential therapeutic uses of these mind-altering substances. Unfortunately, psychedelics were classified as Schedule I drugs in 1970, halting research into their therapeutic benefits.

The recent renaissance of psychedelic research shows these substances have significant capabilities for treating anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders. But these promising results are limited in their applicability: an analysis from 2018 showed that 82.3% of all study participants in psychedelic trials internationally were non-Hispanic Whites, and only 2.5% were African-American.

Read More

Young male doctor in telehealth concept

COVID-19’s Impact on Clinical Trials: Meeting Participants Where They Are

By Sarah V. Ferranti and Shine Chen Schattgen

“Decentralized” clinical trials (referred to as “DCTs”) are not novel, but nevertheless failed to gain real momentum given the regulatory and operational complexities involved. In light of COVID-19, however, it seems almost certain that the remote and virtual study activities that characterize DCTs, and a site and sponsor’s ability to flex to “meet the participant where they are” will be critical to the conduct of clinical trials going forward.

In the first half of 2020, as health care facilities prepared for capacity-exceeding patient volumes and equipment shortages, non-essential clinical care and non-COVID-related clinical trials came to a screeching halt. According to ClinicalTrials.gov, 1473 clinical trials were suspended, terminated, or withdrawn between December 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020, with a reported reason that explicitly mentioned COVID-19.

At the same time, initiation of clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments exploded at speeds previously considered unachievable within the clinical trial industry. As of October 13, 2020, 811 COVID-19-related clinical trials had been initiated in the United States. To enable COVID-19 trials and, more recently, to restart previously paused non-COVID trials, clinical trial sponsors and sites have been forced to quickly adapt to protect participants and preserve the integrity of clinical trial data and results.

Read More