Fol­low­ing up on Trump's or­ders, the FDA wants to know: which reg­u­la­tions and pa­per­work re­quire­ments need to go?

As part of work un­der two ex­ec­u­tive or­ders, FDA cen­ters on Thurs­day sought com­ments on which ex­ist­ing reg­u­la­tions and re­lat­ed pa­per­work re­quire­ments could be mod­i­fied, re­pealed or re­placed, to re­duce the bur­den on in­dus­try while al­low­ing the reg­u­la­tor to con­tin­ue its pub­lic health mis­sion while ful­fill­ing statu­to­ry oblig­a­tions.

Back in Feb­ru­ary, when Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump first an­nounced his or­der to re­duce reg­u­la­to­ry bur­dens, sev­er­al ex­perts point­ed Fo­cus to some out­dat­ed reg­u­la­tions that could be re­moved with lit­tle im­pact on pub­lic health and the agency’s mis­sion, though there are still ques­tions as to what types of reg­u­la­tions will be tar­get­ed.

And as An­na Abram, FDA’s deputy com­mis­sion­er for pol­i­cy, plan­ning, leg­is­la­tion and analy­sis, not­ed in a blog post on Thurs­day, there’s “a lot of ground to cov­er” as FDA’s reg­u­la­tions com­prise more than 4,000 pages in the Code of Fed­er­al Reg­u­la­tions.

In gen­er­al, though, the agency says it’s look­ing for com­ment and sup­port­ing tech­ni­cal, sci­en­tif­ic, eco­nom­ic or oth­er da­ta from those sig­nif­i­cant­ly af­fect­ed by FDA reg­u­la­tions, in­clud­ing con­sumers, pa­tients and care­givers, re­searchers, health­care in­sti­tu­tions, the reg­u­lat­ed in­dus­try, trade as­so­ci­a­tions, pub­lic in­ter­est or­ga­ni­za­tions, acad­e­mia, and state, lo­cal and trib­al gov­ern­ments.

“Some reg­u­la­tions may not ad­e­quate­ly re­flect ad­vances in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy or changes in in­dus­try prac­tice. Oth­ers may be geared to­ward prod­ucts and prac­tices that have large­ly ceased to ex­ist,” Abram said, of­fer­ing the ex­am­ple of how the ma­nip­u­la­tion of FDA’s rules on Risk Eval­u­a­tion and Mit­i­ga­tion Strate­gies (REMS) can cre­ate ob­sta­cles to the time­ly en­try of gener­ic com­pe­ti­tion.

Fea­tured in Thurs­day’s Fed­er­al Reg­is­ter no­tices are ques­tions FDA says it is us­ing to guide its ini­tial re­view, in­clud­ing:

  • Is the reg­u­la­tion still cur­rent, or is it out­dat­ed or un­nec­es­sary in some way?
  • Have reg­u­lat­ed en­ti­ties had dif­fi­cul­ties com­ply­ing with the reg­u­la­tion?
  • Does the reg­u­la­tion im­pose re­quire­ments that are al­so pro­vid­ed for in vol­un­tary or con­sen­sus stan­dards or guid­ance by third par­ty or­ga­ni­za­tions (e.g., In­ter­na­tion­al Coun­cil for Har­mon­i­sa­tion, In­ter­na­tion­al Or­ga­ni­za­tion for Stan­dard­iza­tion, Codex Al­i­men­ta­r­ius)?
  • Does the reg­u­la­tion con­tain re­dun­dant, out­dat­ed, or un­nec­es­sary col­lec­tions of in­for­ma­tion or re­ten­tion of records, e.g., re­port­ing, record­keep­ing, or la­bel­ing re­quire­ments?
  • Could the goal of the reg­u­la­tion be achieved by less cost­ly means that would pro­vide the same lev­el of pub­lic health pro­tec­tion?
  • What fac­tors should FDA con­sid­er in se­lect­ing and pri­or­i­tiz­ing reg­u­la­tions and re­port­ing re­quire­ments for re­form?

Links

Re­view of Ex­ist­ing Gen­er­al Reg­u­la­to­ry and In­for­ma­tion Col­lec­tion Re­quire­ments of the Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion

Re­view of Ex­ist­ing Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search Reg­u­la­to­ry and In­for­ma­tion Col­lec­tion Re­quire­ments

Re­view of Ex­ist­ing Cen­ter for Bi­o­log­ics Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search Reg­u­la­to­ry and In­for­ma­tion Col­lec­tion Re­quire­ments

Re­view of Ex­ist­ing Cen­ter for De­vices and Ra­di­o­log­i­cal Health Reg­u­la­to­ry and In­for­ma­tion Col­lec­tion Re­quire­ments


Im­age: Get­ty, End­points News, The White House

First pub­lished here. Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus is the flag­ship on­line pub­li­ca­tion of the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety (RAPS), the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care and re­lat­ed prod­ucts, in­clud­ing med­ical de­vices, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, bi­o­log­ics and nu­tri­tion­al prod­ucts. Email news@raps.org for more in­for­ma­tion.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Norbert Bischofberger. Kronos

Backed by some of the biggest names in biotech, Nor­bert Bischof­berg­er gets his megaround for plat­form tech out of MIT

A little over a year ago when I reported on Norbert Bischofberger’s jump from the CSO job at giant Gilead to a tiny upstart called Kronos, I noted that with his connections in biotech finance, that $18 million launch round he was starting off with could just as easily have been $100 million or more.

With his first anniversary now behind him, Bischofberger has that mega-round in the bank.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chas­ing Roche's ag­ing block­buster fran­chise, Am­gen/Al­ler­gan roll out Avastin, Her­ceptin knock­offs at dis­count

Let the long battle for biosimilars in the cancer space begin.

Amgen has launched its Avastin and Herceptin copycats — licensed from the predecessors of Allergan — almost two years after the FDA had stamped its approval on Mvasi (bevacizumab-awwb) and three months after the Kanjinti OK (trastuzumab-anns). While the biotech had been fielding biosimilars in Europe, this marks their first foray in the US — and the first oncology biosimilars in the country.

Seer adds ex-FDA chief Mark Mc­Clel­lan to the board; Her­cules Cap­i­tal makes it of­fi­cial for new CEO Scott Bluestein

→ On the same day it announced a $17.5 million Series C, life sciences and health data company Seer unveiled that it had lured former FDA commissioner and ex-CMS administrator Mark McClellan on to its board. “Mark’s deep understanding of the health care ecosystem and visionary insights on policy reform will be crucial in informing our thinking as we work to bring our liquid biopsy and life sciences products to market,” said Seer chief and founder Omid Farokhzad in a statement.

Francesco De Rubertis

Medicxi is rolling out its biggest fund ever to back Eu­rope's top 'sci­en­tists with strange ideas'

Francesco De Rubertis built Medicxi to be the kind of biotech venture player he would have liked to have known back when he was a full time scientist.

“When I was a scientist 20 years ago I would have loved Medicxi,’ the co-founder tells me. It’s the kind of place run by and for investigators, what the Medicxi partner calls “scientists with strange ideas — a platform for the drug hunter and scientific entrepreneur. That’s what I wanted when I was a scientist.”

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Af­ter a decade, Vi­iV CSO John Pot­tage says it's time to step down — and he's hand­ing the job to long­time col­league Kim Smith

ViiV Healthcare has always been something unique in the global drug industry.

Owned by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer — with GSK in the lead as majority owner — it was created 10 years ago in a time of deep turmoil for the field as something independent of the pharma giants, but with access to lots of infrastructural support on demand. While R&D at the mother ship inside GSK was souring, a razor-focused ViiV provided a rare bright spot, challenging Gilead on a lucrative front in delivering new combinations that require fewer therapies with a more easily tolerated regimen.

They kept a massive number of people alive who would otherwise have been facing a death sentence. And they made money.

And throughout, John Pottage has been the chief scientific and chief medical officer.

Until now.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Daniel O'Day

No­var­tis hands off 3 pre­clin­i­cal pro­grams to the an­tivi­ral R&D mas­ters at Gilead

Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day’s new task hunting up a CSO for the company isn’t stopping the industry’s dominant antiviral player from doing pipeline deals.

The big biotech today snapped up 3 preclinical antiviral programs from pharma giant Novartis, with drugs promising to treat human rhinovirus, influenza and herpes viruses. We don’t know what the upfront is, but the back end has $291 million in milestones baked in.

Vas Narasimhan, AP Images

On a hot streak, No­var­tis ex­ecs run the odds on their two most im­por­tant PhI­II read­outs. Which is 0.01% more like­ly to suc­ceed?

Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan is living in the sweet spot right now.

The numbers are running a bit better than expected, the pipeline — which he assembled as development chief — is performing and the stock popped more than 4% on Thursday as the executive team ran through their assessment of Q2 performance.

Year-to-date the stock is up 28%, so the investors will be beaming. Anyone looking for chinks in their armor — and there are plenty giving it a shot — right now focus on payer acceptance of their $2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, where it’s early days. And CAR-T continues to underperform, but Novartis doesn’t appear to be suffering from it.

So what could go wrong?

Actually, not much. But Tim Anderson at Wolfe pressed Narasimhan and his development chief John Tsai to pick which of two looming Phase III readouts with blockbuster implication had the better odds of success.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

On a glob­al romp, Boehringer BD team picks up its third R&D al­liance for Ju­ly — this time fo­cused on IPF with $50M up­front

Boehringer Ingelheim’s BD team is on a global deal spree. The German pharma company just wrapped its third deal in 3 weeks, going back to Korea for its latest pipeline pact — this time focused on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

They’re handing over $50 million to get their hands on BBT-877, an ATX inhibitor from Korea’s Bridge Biotherapeutics that was on display at a science conference in Dallas recently. There’s not a whole lot of data to evaluate the prospects here.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Servi­er scoots out of an­oth­er col­lab­o­ra­tion with Macro­Gen­ics, writ­ing off their $40M

Servier is walking out on a partnership with MacroGenics $MGNX — for the second time.

After the market closed on Wednesday MacroGenics put out word that Servier is severing a deal — inked close to 7 years ago — to collaborate on the development of flotetuzumab and other Dual-Affinity Re-Targeting (DART) drugs in its pipeline.

MacroGenics CEO Scott Koenig shrugged off the departure of Servier, which paid $20 million to kick off the alliance and $20 million to option flotetuzumab — putting a heavily back-ended $1 billion-plus in additional biobuck money on the table for the anti-CD123/CD3 bispecific and its companion therapies.