Evaluating oversight of human drugs and medical devices: A case study of the FDA and implications for nanobiotechnology

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 598-624

  Paradise, Jordan ^a   Tisdale, Alison W ^b   Hall, Ralph F ^c   Kokkoli, Efrosini ^b  

^a University School of Law   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONFERENCE PAPER; CONSENSUS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DRUG CONTROL; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HISTORY; HUMAN; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; LITERATURE; MANAGEMENT; NANOMEDICINE; SAFETY; UNITED STATES;

CONSENSUS; CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; INTERDISCIPLINARY COMMUNICATION; NANOMEDICINE; ORGANIZATIONAL CASE STUDIES; POLICY MAKING; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 76149143415     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00434.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (134)

1. Authors utilized legal, policy, and ethics resources, both online and in print.
2. J. Kuzma et al., "An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies Risk Analysis 28, no. 5 (2008 1197 1220.
3. "Generic Expert Elicitation Survey Instrument," Appendix A in J. Paradise et al., "Developing U.S. Oversight Strategies for Nanobiotechnology: Learning from Past Oversight Experiences Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009 688 705.
4. Id.
5. P. Hyman, "U.S. Food and Drug Law and FDA: A Historical Background in K.R. Piña and W. L. Pines, eds., A Practical Guide to Food and Drug Law and Regulation: Second Edition (Washington, D.C. : Food and Drug Law Institute, 2002 at 17.
6. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of the Commissioner oversees the actions of all the individual product-specific FDA Centers. See Organization Chart of FDA, available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/orgcharts/fda.pdf last visited August 20, 2008).
7. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) is codified both in 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. and as FDCA §1 et seq. Throughout this article, we will use the U.S. Code (U.S.C.) sections.
8. See Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Organization Chart, available at http://www.hhs.gov/about/orgchart.html last visited September 15, 2009).
9. FDA, FDA News: The Food and Drug Administration Celebrates 100 Years of Service to the Nation, January 4, 2006, available at http://www.fda.gov/bbs/ topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01292.html last visited September 15, 2009).
10. FDA Sees Nanotech Challenges in Every Product Category It Regulates, July 28, 2007, available at http://www.science-daily.com/releases/2007/07/ 070725174446.htm last visited September 15, 2009).
11. FDA Mission Statement, "What We Do available at http://www.fda.gov/ opacom/morechoices/mission.html last visited September 15, 2009).
12. L. M. Schechtman, "The Safety Assessment Process - Setting the Scene: An FDA Perspective Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Journal 43, Supplement (2002 S5 S10, at S6.
13. -21 U.S.C. § 371(a)(2009).
14. The scope of this article does not include foods, cosmetics, biologics, and animal drugs.
15. This pertains to products except that those "for which a license has been approved under subsection (a) shall not be required to have an approved application under section 505 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 355)." 42 U.S.C. § 262(j) (2009).
16. See FDCA, supra note 7.
17. -21 U.S.C. §§ 351-360 (2009).
18. The FDA describes a generic drug product as "one that is comparable to an innovator drug product in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use." See FDA ANDA Process for Generic Drugs, available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/Regulatory/ applications/ANDA.htm last visited August 20, 2008).
19. See Piña and Pines, supra note 5.
20. -21 C.F.R § 58 (2009).
21. -21 U.S.C. § 355(i) (2009).
22. -21 C.F.R. § 50 (2009).
23. -21 C.F.R. § 56 (2009).
24. -21 C.F.R. § 314 (2009). The FDA provides guidance for the NDA process. See FDA, Good Review Management Principles for PDUFA Products, April 2005, available at http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/5812fnl.pdf last visited August 20, 2008).
25. For guidance on the meaning of "adequate and well-controlled" studies, see FDA, Guidance for Industry Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products, May 1998, available at http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/clineff.pdf last visited August 20, 2008).
26. -21 U.S.C. § 355(b)(1) (2009).
27. -21 C.F.R. § 314.510, Subpart H (2009). A list of NDAs approved under Subpart H can be found on the FDA's website, available at http://www.fda.gov/Cder/rdmt/accappr.htm last visited September 15, 2009).
28. Bioequivalence is defined as "the absence of a significant difference in the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety in pharmaceutical equivalents or pharmaceutical alternatives becomes available at the site of drug action when administered at the same molar dose under similar conditions in an appropriately designed study." 21 C.F.R. § 320.1(e) (2009). The bioavailability standard is defined as the "the rate and extent to which the active ingredient or active moiety is absorbed from a drug product and becomes available at the site of action." 21 C.F.R. § 320.1(a) (2009).
29. -21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(2)(A)(i)-(viii) (2009). See also 21 C.F.R. § 314.94 (2009).
30. -21 U.S.C. §§ 351-360 (2009).
31. P. B. Hutt, R. A. Merrill, and L. A. Grossman, Food and Drug Law: Cases and Materials, 3rd ed. (New York : Foundation Press, 2007 at 986.
32. -21 U.S.C. § 360(c) (2009).
33. E. C. Wilson and L. A. Clarke, "The Medical Device Approval Process in Piña and Pines, supra note 5, at 128.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. -21 C.F.R. §§ 862-892 (2009).
37. -21 U.S.C. § 360(c)(i)(1)(A) (2009).
38. E. Mansfield, T. J. O'Leary, and S. I. Gutman, "Food and Drug Administration Regulation of IVDs Journal of Molecular Devices 7, no. 1 (2005 2 7, at 4.
39. -21 C.F.R. §§ 862-880 (2009).
40. -21 U.S.C. § 360(e) (2009).
41. See Wilson and Clarke, supra note 33, at 129.
42. The medical device provisions allow manufacturers to file an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) to clinically test experimental devices in order to acquire safety and performance data. This is similar to the IND process, except that approval by a local IRB is typically sufficient unless the process of review by the committee is found to be inadequate. 21 U.S.C. § 360(j)(g) (3)(A)(ii)(II) (2009). The FDA divides investigational devices into two categories: those posing "significant risk" with requirements similar to new drugs and those that do not pose significant risk where IRB approval and satisfaction of a number of other requirements achieves the IDE status without the rigorous application process. 21 C.F.R. § 812.2(b) (2009).
43. -21 U.S.C. § 360e(c) (2009).
44. S. D. Ramsey et al., "The Limited State of Technology Assessment for Medical Devices: Facing the Issues American Journal of Managed Care 4, Supplement (1998 SP188 SP199, at SP189.
45. See Mansfield, O'Leary, and Gutman, supra note 38, at 3.
46. D. W. Feigal, S. N. Gardner, and M. McClellan, "Ensuring Safe & Effective Medical Devices New England Journal of Medicine 348, no. 3 (2003 191 192, at 191.
47. See Ramsey et al., supra note 44.
48. A. S. Baluch, "Angstrom Medica: Securing FDA Approval and Commercializing a Nanomedical Device Nanotechnology Law & Business 2, no. 2 (2005 168 173, at 172.
49. Pub. L. No. 107-250 (Oct. 26, 2002). See also FDA, "Overview of the Office of Combination Products," available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/ combination/overview.html last visited September 15, 2009). The Safe Medical Device Act of 1990 originally gave primary jurisdiction to the most relevant center to regulate combination products. Pub. L. No. 101-629 (November 28, 1990), codified at 21 U.S.C. § 353(g) (2009).
50. -70 Federal Register 164, at 49848-49862 (August 25, 2005).
51. FDA, "Final Rule: Definition of a Primary Mode of Action for a Combination Product available at http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/05- 16527htm last visited August 20, 2008).
52. See Ramsey et al., supra note 44, citing D. A. Kessler et al., "The Federal Regulation of Medical Devices," New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 6 (1987): 357-366.
53. M. C. Roco, "Nanotechnology: Convergence with Modern Biology and Medicine Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14, no. 3 (2003 337 346, at 337.
54. Editorial, "Regulating Nanomedicine Nature Materials 6, no. 4 (2007 249.
55. C. Garber, "The Potential and the Pitfalls of Nanomedicine NanoWerk Spotlight, May 7, 2007, available at http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid= 1891.php last visited September 16, 2009). See also K. F. Schmidt, "Nanofrontiers: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology," Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, D.C., March 2007, available at http://www.nano2life.org/download/ nanofrontiers-2007.pdf last visited August 20, 2008).
56. See Editorial, supra note 54.
57. V. Wagner et al, "The Emerging Nanomedicine Landscape Nature Biotechnology 24, no. 10 (2006 1211.
58. -21 U.S.C. §§ 301-99 (2009).
59. J. Paradise et al., "Exploring Emerging Nanobiotechnology Drugs and Medical Devices Food & Drug Law Journal 63, no. 2 (2008 407 420.
60. See Abraxis Biosciences, available at http://abraxane.com/index.aspx last visited September 16, 2009).
61. See Ortho Biotech Products, LP, available at http://www.doxil.com/index. jsp last visited August 20, 2008).
62. See Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, available at http://www.wyeth.com/products? product=/wyeth-html/home/products/prescription/Rapamune%c2%ae%20(sirolimus)/ prescribinginfo.html last visited September 16, 2009).
63. See Crucell-Berna Biotech, available at http://www.crucell.com/Products- Epaxal last visited September 16, 2009).
64. See Espirit-Pharma, available at http://www.estrasorb.com last visited September 16, 2009).
65. See Ortho Vita, Inc., available at http://orthovitaportal.com/ Vitoss%20Technical%20Information/default.aspx last visited September 16, 2009).
66. See GfE Medizintechnik, available at http://www.gfe.com/opencms2/opencms/ en-gfe-online.de/GfE-Unternehmen-sprofil.html last visited September 16, 2009).
67. See SurgRX, available at http://www.surgrx.com/index.php last visited September 16, 2009).
68. See Veridex, LLC, available at http://www.immunicon.com/CellSearch/ CSProducts/CellTracksAnalyzer.aspx last visited September 16, 2009).
69. FDA, Nanotechnology: A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force (2007 available at http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/ taskforce/report2007.pdf last visited September 16, 2009).
70. Id., at 20-21.
71. F. A. Fielder and G. H. Reynolds, "Legal Problems of Nanotechnology: An Overview Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal 3, no. 2 (1994 593 629.
72. See, e.g., G. Morgan and M. Henrion, "Performing Probability Assessment in G. Morgan and M. Henrion, eds., Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing With Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1990 at 141-171.
73. See United States v. Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784 (1969) and AMP, Inc. v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1968).
74. J. L. Regens, T. M. Dietx, and R. W. Rycroft, "Risk Assessment in Policy-Making Process: Environmental Health and Safety Protection Public Administration Review 43, no. 2 (1983 137 145, at 142.
75. R. A. Deyo, "Gaps, Tensions and Conflicts in the FDA Approval Process: Implications for Clinical Practice Journal of the American Board of Family Practice 17, no. 2 (2004 142 149.
76. Id.
77. R. Katz, "FDA: Evidentiary Standards for Drug Development and Approval NeuroRx 1, no. 3 (2004 307 316, at 309.
78. H. D. Banta, S. Corcoran, and J. R. Sanes, "Weighing the Benefits and Costs of Medical Technologies Proceedings of the IEEE 67, no. 9 (1979 1190 1196, at 1191.
79. See Deyo, supra note 75, at 147.
80. S. Frantz, "How to Avoid Another 'Vioxx' Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 4, no. 1 (2005 5 7, at 5.
81. A. Lawler, "Vioxx Verdict: Too Little or Too Much Science?" Science 309, no. 5740 (2005 1481.
82. R. G. Hauser and B. J. Maron, "Lessons From the Failure and Recall of an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Circulation 112, no. 13 (2005 2040 2042.
83. A. Gorsett, "Urgent Medical Device Safety Information & Corrective Action: VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR, model 1981 Letter from Vice President Reliability & Quality Assurance, Guidant Cardiac Rhythm Management, June 17, 2005, available at http://www.guidant.com/physiciancommunications/PRIZM2-DR.pdf last visited September 16, 2009).
84. R. Steinbrook, "The Controversy over Guidant's Implantable Defibrillators New England Journal of Medicine 353, no. 3 (2005 221 224. This article specifically raises issues with the Heart Rhythm Society's corporate funding from Guidant, Medtronic, etc., implicating conflicts of interest. See also W. H. Maisel, "Safety Issues Involving Medical Devices: Implications of Recent Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Malfunctions," JAMA 292, no. 8 (2005): 955-958.
85. See FDA, "Adverse Event Reporting System available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/aers/default.htm last visited September 16, 2009).
86. FDA, "MedWatch available at http://www.fda.gov/med-watch/ last visited September 16, 2009).
87. -21 C.F.R. § 314.80(c)(1)(i 2009).
88. -21 U.S.C. § 383.1 (2009).
89. FDA, "Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) available at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/search. cfm last visited September 16, 2009).
90. -31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. (2009).
91. -18 U.S.C. § 1341 (2009).
92. -18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2009).
93. See Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009).
94. Vioxx and related COX-2 inhibitors, implantable defibrillators and orthopedic products have all been subject to intense scrutiny because of some combination of perceived safety issues and industry misconduct.
95. M. Olson, "Substitution in Regulatory Agencies: FDA Enforcement Alternatives Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 12, no. 2 (1996 376 407, at 404; C. E. Shipan, "Regulatory Regimes, Agency Actions, and the Conditional Nature of Congressional Influence," American Political Science Review 98, no. 3 (2004): 467-480, at 478.
96. M. Olson, "Substitution in Regulatory Agencies: FDA Enforcement Alternatives Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 12, no. 2 (1996 376 407, at 389.
97. S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1990 at 153.
98. R. S. Friedman, "Representation in Regulatory Decision Making: Scientific, Industrial & Consumer Inputs to the FDA Public Administration Review 38, no. 3 (1978 205 214, at 206.
99. Id.
100. See FDA, "FDA Advisory Committees Information available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/panel/overview.html last visited August 20, 2008).
101. See Friedman, supra note 98, at 213.
102. Union of Concerned Scientists, "Voices of Scientists at the FDA: Protecting Public Health Depends on Independent Science July 2006, available at http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press-release/fda-scientists-pressured.html last visited August 20, 2008) (peer survey of 5,918 scientists at FDA).
103. -103. 21 C.F.R. §10.115 (2009).
104. -5 U.S.C. § 552 (2009).
105. -21 C.F.R. § 10.30 (2009).
106. Pub. L. No. 109-41, 60 Stat. 237, codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.
107. P. Lurie and A. Zieve, "Sometimes the Silence Can be Like the Thunder: Access to Pharmaceutical Data at the FDA Law & Contemporary Problems 69 (2006 85 97, at 85.
108. Id., at 95.
109. Adulteration included anything insanitary or unsafe and mis-branded included anything with false or misleading claims.
110. Pub. L. No. 75-717, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938 as amended 21 U.S.C. §§ 301-392 (1994).
111. P. B. Hutt, "A History of Government Regulation of Adulteration and Misbranding of Medical Devices Food Drug and Cosmetic Law Journal 99 (1989 104 105.
112. R. R. Munsey, "Trends and Events in FDA Regulation of Medical Devices over the Last Fifty Years Food & Drug Law Journal 50, Special Issue (1995 163 177.
113. R. A. Merrill, "Symposium on Regulating Medical Innovation: The Architecture of Government Regulation of Medical Products Virginia Law Review 82, no. 8 (1996 1753 1866, at 1804.
114. United States v. An Article of Drug⋯ Bacto-Unidisk, 394 U.S. 784 (1969).
115. AMP, Inc. v. Gardner, 389 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1968).
116. R. Temple, "Policy Developments in Regulatory Approval Statistics in Medicine 21, no. 19 (2002 2939 2948, at 2939.
117. -21 U.S.C. § 355(d) (2009). Characteristics of "adequate and well controlled study" are enumerated in 21 C.F.R. § 314.126 (2009).
118. FDA, "Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and Biological Products May 1998, available at http://www.fda.gov/CDER/GUIDANCE/ 1397fnl.pdf last visited August 20, 2008).
119. -21 C.F.R. § 314.500, Subpart H (2009).
120. Pub. L. No. 102-300 (June 16, 1992).
121. Pub. L. No. 105-115 (November 21, 1997).
122. Pub. L. No. 110-85 (September 27, 2007).
123. W. H. Maisel, "Medical Device Regulation: An Introduction for the Practicing Physician Annals of Internal Medicine 140, no. 4 (2002 296 302.
124. See, e.g., D. A. Zarin and T. Tse, "Moving Toward Transparency of Clinical Trials Science 319, no. 5868 (2008 1340 1342, at 1341.
125. Id., at 1342.
126. Harris Interactive, "The FDA's Reputation with the General Public Is Under Assault May 26, 2006, available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/ allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1060 last visited September 16, 2009) (online survey from May 12-16, 2006 of 2,371 U.S. adults).
127. American University Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, "A Dialogue on Prescription Drug Safety: Seeking Common Ground available at http://www.dialogueondrugsafety.org/ last visited September 16, 2009). See also S. Reinberg, "Americans Confused About FDA and Drug Safety," U.S. News & World Report, September 20, 2007, available at http://health.usnews. com/usnews/health/health-day/070920/americans-confused-about-fda-and-drug- safety.htm last visited September 16, 2009) (phone survey of 800 adults between September 4-6, 2007).
128. See Union of Concerned Scientists, supra note 102.
129. Harris Interactive, "Confidence in FDA Hits New Low, According to WSJ.com/Harris Interactive Study April 22, 2008, available at http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1301 last visited September 16, 2009) (online survey of 2,476 U.S. adults from April 1-4, 2008).
130. See Deyo, supra note 75.
131. J. B. Finkelstein, "FDA Revamps Committee Conflict-of-interest Rules Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98, no. 19 (2006 1354.
132. FDA, Draft Guidance for the Public, FDA Advisory Committee Members, and FDA Staff on Procedures for Determining Conflict of Interest and Eligibility for Participation on FDA Advisory Committees, March 2007, available at http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/07d-0101-gdl0001.pdf last visited September 16, 2009).
133. J. L. Fox, "User-Fee Bill Passes U.S. Senate, But Legislative Hurdles Remain Nature Biotechnology 25, no. 6 (2007 611.
134. See FDA, supra note 69.