Last Friday, FDA published a Notice in the Federal Register (here) relative to staying a portion of its September 2013 Guidance Document titled Investigational New Drug Applications (INDs) – Determining Whether Human Research Studies Can Be Conducted Without an IND. The Agency indicated that, based on comment received on various sections of the final Guidance,
How does the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) make a determination to revise an existing bioequivalence (BE) guidance? What happens to the requirements for drug product under development or those products that are approved when a BE guidance is revised? These questions were addressed by Dr. Robert Lionberger and Dr. Larissa Lapteva in a session at the GPhA Fall Tech Conference.
As you know, the issue of controlled correspondence has historically been a contentious issue between the Office of Generic Drugs and the generic industry mostly related to timing of the response. The situation is not different today but the contention addressed today is more about the new definition of controlled correspondence and who may submit them.
Dr. Kathleen Uhl (Cook), Director Office of Generic Drugs (OGD), provided an excellent update on OGD’s progress under GDUFA. There were a number of interesting charts that described approvals, receipts and actions that defined what Cook called the “In Box” (what’s coming into OGD) and “Out Box” (productivity or what is going out of OGD).
I just received an update for the October approval numbers from OGD and the full approvals have been revised upward from 49 to 51.
The Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) is starting off FY 2016 at the same level that they ended FY 2015, with a total of 70 approval actions, one less than September’s record total. The breakdown is- 49 full approvals and 21 tentative approvals (TA).
While I am certain that industry would like to see more full approvals,
Complete Response Letters (CRLs) (remember those letters where FDA was going to respond all at once with Division level review and you were not going to get any more discipline specific letters?) are a harbinger of “approval issues that are too great to resolve through other means”. Yes, that’s right, expect a CRL if issues are complex or too vexing to permit approval.
Partial updates to the Generic Activity Report for FY 2015 were recently published and, while we see a recent surge of approvals, the number of Complete Response Letters (CRLs) issued appears to be flat across all of the first three GDUFA Cohort years.
The Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) is evolving as the GDUFA process is gaining steam, and the pieces are coming together regarding coordination of reviews, and as efficiency in the review and approval process improves. Here are some interesting facts that have come out of OGD
With October 1, 2015 signaling the start of cohort year 4 of the GDUFA program, the receipt and approval numbers are in the book for first three years of the program. Let’s take a look at the numbers to see where we may be heading.
In a Federal Register (FR) Notice today (here) , FDA has indicated that a long-held practice of requiring the submission of actual or printers proof of final printed labeling (FPL) will no longer be required for ANDA approval, and that OGD will accept draft labeling for approval purposes.
The Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) approved 61 ANDAs in the month of September to close out fiscal year (FY) 2015 on a high note.
The FDA is required to produce a yearly report that addresses the number of petitions filed during the previous year, the number of those petitions that were designated as 505(q) petitions, and the number of the 505(q) petitions that delayed whether a 505(b)(2) application, ANDA or biosimilar approval.
The FDA report (here) indicates that,
FDA approved the first 3D printed drug product on August 3, 2015. The product, named Spritam (levetriacetam) is used to treat seizures. The product is listed in approved labeling as a “tablet for oral use.” Interesting terms for this new dosage form