Key Takeaways:
- On October 23, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft guidance, Communications From Firms to Health Care Providers Regarding Scientific Information on Unapproved Uses of Approved/Cleared Medical Products, Questions and Answers. This draft guidance, if finalized, will supersede FDA's 2014 draft guidance document, Distributing Scientific and Medical Publications on Unapproved New Uses — Recommended Practices.
- This version discusses FDA's evolving policy surrounding "Scientific Information on Unapproved Uses Communications" ("SIUU Communications"), which builds upon the 2014 draft guidance but includes a handful of key differences.
- The revised draft guidance provides explicit recommendations and examples for SIUU Communications to help firms comply with statutory prohibitions against introducing (or causing the introduction) into interstate commerce a medical product that is intended for a use that has not been approved or cleared by FDA and related regulations and policies. The draft guidance includes specific recommendations regarding the appropriate types of media and content for such communications.
Background
On October 23, 2023, FDA published a draft guidance document to provide detailed recommendations to industry regarding the communication of unapproved uses of approved or cleared drugs and medical devices to health care providers (HCPs) in a manner that complies with applicable laws, regulations, and policies surrounding the promotion and commercial marketing of medical products. This draft guidance is the latest in a series of efforts, including:
- In 2008–2009, FDA issued a draft, and then final, guidance on "good reprint practices" for firms distributing "journal articles" or "scientific or medical reference publications. "
- In 2014, the agency issued a revised draft guidance (the "2014 Draft Guidance") expanding the scope of communications with specific recommended standards to include clinical practice guidelines, as well as further guidance on reprints and other issues.
- The agency held a public meeting in 2016 to solicit comments on its guidelines for communications regarding unapproved uses. In 2017, following the hearing, FDA published a new memorandum with additional guidance, which was accompanied by a public docket for comment on the issue.
- In the preamble to FDA's final rule on "intended use" in 2021, the agency discussed unapproved use communication at length. The preamble included responses to comments to the proposed rule which cited litigation challenging the agency's ability to bring enforcement actions against firms that are allegedly promoting off-label uses.
The 2023 SIUU Communication Draft Guidance (or "2023 Draft
Guidance") provides FDA's interpretation of how unapproved
uses of approved or cleared medical products can be communicated by
firms in a compliant manner. In addition, the guidance expands the
scope of regulated communications to include firm-generated
presentations.
This latest draft guidance supplements the agency's other
notable guidance documents on preapproval communications and
communications about unapproved uses including, Responding to Unsolicited Requests for
Off-Label Information About Prescription Drugs and Medical
Devices and Drug and Device Manufacturer Communications
With Payors, Formulary Committees, and Similar Entities –
Questions and Answers. These guidance documents, while
different in scope, similarly address extra-label communication of
scientifically supported product information.
Return of "FDA-required labeling" Definition
One of the key defined terms in the SIUU Communication Draft
Guidance, "FDA-required labeling," recently appeared in
another draft guidance document, Regulatory Considerations for Prescription Drug
Use-Related Software (PDURS). In the PDURS draft guidance, FDA
stated that it generally recognizes two broad categories of
prescription drug labeling: (1) FDA-required labeling or (2)
promotional labeling. The PDURS draft guidance defines
"FDA-required labeling" as "the labeling reviewed
and approved by FDA as part of a new drug application (NDA), an
abbreviated new drug application (ANDA), or a biologics license
application (BLA), as well as supplemental applications ...".
According to the PDURS draft guidance, any labeling that falls
outside of "FDA-required labeling" would be considered
"promotional labeling."
The SIUU Communication Draft Guidance defines "FDA-required
labeling" as labeling "reviewed and approved by FDA as
part of the medical product premarket review process." The
draft guidance provides some examples for "FDA-required
labeling" including prescribing information for prescription
drug and biologics, the "labeling approved during the review
of a premarket approval application or De Novo classification"
for devices, and the labeling that must be provided for
nonprescription drugs. The SIUU definition (which also covers
animal drugs) covers more products and includes a more specific
application than the PDURS draft guidance definition of
"FDA-required labeling."
Both guidance documents include "labeling reviewed and
approved by FDA" in their definitions of "FDA-required
labeling," but it is conceivable that FDA would consider
certain materials to be "FDA-required" in one context,
but not in another. If that is the case, manufacturers and sponsors
will have to navigate what constitutes "promotional
labeling" on a situational basis unless the agency creates a
uniform definition upon finalization of the draft guidance
documents. Nonetheless, FDA is putting firms on notice that it will
continue to view labeling that it approves under a different lens
than labeling it does not review pursuant to a product
approval.
SIUU Communications
The 2023 Draft Guidance defines a new term, "Scientific
Information on Unapproved Uses Communications" ("SIUU
Communications"), which may have been motivated in part to
differentiate this guidance from FDA's 1997 guidance regarding
scientific exchange. While the 2014 Draft Guidance did not define
key terms, the 2023 Draft Guidance provides a detailed scope for
SIUU Communications. Such communications are defined as
"specific types of communications from firms to HCPs of
scientific information on unapproved uses of approved/cleared
medical products in combination with the disclosures recommended in
this guidance." An "unapproved use" is defined as
"a use that is not lawfully included as an indication or use
in FDA-required labeling of an approved/cleared medical
product," using the definition of "FDA-required
labeling" discussed above.
Notably, the 2023 Draft Guidance specifies that the SIUU standards
described do not apply to products authorized for emergency use
under Section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act
(FDCA), a distinction necessary due to the substantial increase in
EUA devices, vaccines, and drugs that were authorized during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
Sources that discuss unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical
products are grouped into the following three categories of SIUU
Communications:
- Published scientific or medical journal articles ("reprints").
- Published clinical reference resources, including:
- Clinical practice guidelines ("CPGs");
- Scientific or medical reference texts ("reference texts"); and
- Independent clinical practice resources.
- Firm-generated presentations of scientific information from an accompanying published reprint.
These categories of communications are broader than the categories discussed in the 2014 Draft Guidance, which included reprints, CPGs, and reference texts, but not independent clinical resources or firm-generated presentations of scientific information accompanying a reprint. (The 2014 Draft Guidance contained some guidelines that may have been relevant and therefore reasonably interpreted to govern those categories of communications.)
Presentational Considerations for SIUU Communications
The agency provides examples of acceptable media and communication standards for SIUU through a Q&A format. FDA outlines five principles that sponsors should consider when communicating SIUU:
- SIUU Communications should clearly and prominently present all disclosures recommended in the guidance.
- SIUU Communications should not use "persuasive marketing techniques."
- SIUU Communications should be separate and distinct from promotional communications about approved uses of medical products.
- SIUU Communications should be shared through media and via platforms that enable firms to implement the recommendations in this guidance.
- Firms should consider using plain language in the content they develop for SIUU Communications to facilitate comprehension.
Most of these recommendations were expressed or implied in the 2014 Draft Guidance, but the revised draft guidance elaborates further on the agency's recommendations regarding the use of certain types of media, formatting of text and graphics, and elements that should be present in specific types of communications. For example, the 2023 Draft Guidance explains that the limitations of some platforms (e.g., character counts, size restrictions) might interfere with the ability to clearly and prominently present all recommended disclosures, thereby making them inappropriate for SIUU Communications. The revised draft guidance also details the agency's rationale for advising against the use of persuasive marketing techniques (i.e., marketing techniques that influence the use of medical products based on elements other than the scientific content of the communication) in SIUU Communications and for recommending that firms maintain appropriate separation between SIUU Communications and communications about approved uses.
Key Differences Between the 2014 and 2023 Draft Guidance Documents
The 2023 Draft Guidance repeatedly emphasizes that SIUU
Communications should be relevant to the "care of an
individual patient," as opposed to information that is
typically shared with HCPs in the context of population-based
coverage or reimbursement decisions or for research purposes. The
distinction suggests that the agency looks less favorably on a
firm's dissemination of off-label information to HCPs if the
information is derived from published sources that are too general
to provide meaningful guidance for clinical practice.
Also, of note, is the 2023 Draft Guidance's repeated emphasis
on the balancing act of supporting HCP interest in scientific
information about unapproved uses of approved/cleared medical
products to inform clinical practice decisions for the "care
of an individual patient," and preserving the various
government interests in incentivizing the development of and
satisfaction of applicable premarket requirements for medical
products—potentially signifying that FDA will likely
scrutinize SIUU communications more closely.
The 2023 Draft Guidance provides new, specific guidelines for all
SIUU Communications, including a recommendation that any
communication focused on a particular study or set of studies also
include "any conclusions from other relevant studies, when
applicable, that are contrary to or cast doubt on the results
shared, including citations for any such studies," as compared
with the 2014 Draft Guidance's narrower recommendation that
reprints be "disseminated with a representative publication,
when such information exists, that reaches contrary or different
conclusions regarding the unapproved use—especially when the
conclusions of articles to be disseminated have been specifically
called into question by another publication."
The most significant changes for a specific category of SIUU
pertains to reprints. The 2023 Draft Guidance stresses that
reprints and other communications should be "clinically
relevant," meaning "the studies or analyses, in addition
to being scientifically sound, should provide information that is
pertinent to HCPs engaged in making clinical practice decisions for
the care of an individual patient."
The 2023 Draft Guidance establishes new recommendations for
reprints that are stricter than those in the 2014 Draft Guidance,
including the following:
- New, stricter standards for journals used for reprints: Rather than just being "peer-reviewed and published in accordance with the peer-review procedures of the organization" (2014), reprints should be "published in a journal managed by an independent organization with an editorial board comprised of persons who have demonstrated expertise in the subject of the articles under review by the organization (through education or experience), and a publicly stated policy regarding the disclosure of conflicts of interest or biases for all authors, contributors, or editors" (2023), and the peer reviewers should be "experts in the subject of the article, as established by education or experience. "
- Stricter specifications for determining that a publication is "scientifically sound" and "clinically relevant": Where the 2014 Draft Guidance, for instance, stated that, "in the case of devices, significant investigations other than adequate and well-controlled studies, such as ... journal articles discussing significant non-clinical research (such as well-designed bench or animal studies) may be consistent with this guidance," the 2023 version states that "sharing articles focused on a nonclinical study or analysis alone would not be consistent with the enforcement policy outlined in this guidance because this nonclinical study or analysis alone is unlikely to provide information that is clinically relevant." The 2023 draft guidance also specifically notes concerns about SIUU relaying or being based on studies "without an adequate comparison or control group," "isolated case reports," and "scientific data generated in early stages of product development."
The 2023 Draft Guidance also provides specific recommendations for SIUU characterized as "firm-generated presentations" that are consistent with those provided for SIUU in general and communications explicitly discussed in the 2014 Draft Guidance. For example, FDA advises that presentations should avoid suggesting a study "represents larger or more-general experience with the medical product than it actually does." In addition, presentations should not "rely upon the accompanying reprint(s) to provide information that is material to the representations made in the firm-generated presentation," even if the reprint includes that material information itself.
Conclusion
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.