Skip links

Services Articles and Insights

2014 505(b)(2) NDA Approvals

2014 drug approvals seem to have rebounded somewhat from the past year. In his annual CDER New Drug Review Update, FDA’s John Jenkins cited 35 NME NDA and BLA approvals (calculated through December 3, 2014), up from 27 in 2013 (see chart below). These approvals

Therapeutic Equivalence Ratings Under 505(b)(2)

The FDA listing of therapeutic equivalence (TE) ratings can be a murky area for products approved under 505(b)(2) applications. The concept of TE ratings emerged from FDA regulations for generics and revolve around the announcement that the FDA would publish a current listing of all

Importing pre-launch products with a bit of PLAIR

With the tsunami of activities connected with the initial implementation of all the GDUFA requirements, another change made by FDA went largely under the radar.  FDA released the draft guidance, “Pre-Launch Activities Importation Requests (PLAIR)”. (CDER July 2013) which describes how an NDA/ANDA applicant may

2013 505(b)(2) NDA Approvals

2013 appears to be a challenging year for FDA NDA approvals.  FDA's John Jenkins reviewed the  NME NDA and BLA approvals through November 2013, showing that 25 such products were approved (see chart below).  These 25 approvals are 505(b)(1)NDA and BLA's.  Generally, this performance was seen as

Expensive, cheap, value? CMO costs.

Contract manufacturing organization (CMO) A bids $600,000.  CMO B bids $450,000.  Which bid is cheaper? Assume for the moment that both CMOs provide equal service parameters: skill, capacity, timelines, regulatory history, experience, etc. and we are judging both based only on price. No, this is a not trick question. 

PREA – Pediatric Plan Timing Changed by PDUFA V

The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA; also known as PDUFA V), signed into law on July 9, 2012, contains amendments to the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) that specifically detail the timing of the submission of a Pediatric Study Plan (PSP). In

505(b)(2) Prodrug Fails Phase III Study

Development of drugs for new indications entails more risk of failure than simply changing formulations.  Just ask XenoPort, which announced May 19th that its prodrug of R-baclofen, arbaclofen placarbil,   failed to show efficacy in a Phase III clinical trial. Arbaclofen placarbil was being studied for multiple sclerosis-related

Don’t conduct unneeded tox studies

In April I presented a webinar under the auspices of the DIA concerning preclinical bridging. During this webinar, we discussed the need to fill the toxicology gaps that may have been created during the time since the original reference listed drug was approved. These gaps,

New PDUFA V Meeting Timelines

PDUFA V ushered in new industry and FDA commitments.  Among these are changes in meeting timelines. A significant change from PDUFA IV is the timeline for Type A meetings. Under PDUFA IV the meeting package was due 30 days in advance of the meeting.  Now,

Advisory Committee Cool on Non-Steroid Hot Flash Treatments

The Camargo team got its start in the 505(b)(2) process at Duramed Pharmaceuticals with the 1990's development and approval of Cenestin (synthetic conjugated estrogens, A).  The product was approved based on a Phase 3 clinical study demonstrating the treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms (VMS)

Orphan Designation Granted Letter

Camargo is privileged to work with many clients to develop Orphan drugs.  In order to obtain an Orphan drug approval the sponsor must first request that the drug and indication be granted orphan-drug designation.  This process requires research into both the indication and the potential

Are 505(b)(2)’s “Super Generics” or what do we call them?

When we started Camargo almost 10 years ago, products approved under 505j were called 'generics' and 505(b)(1) 'new drugs'.  We could find no consensus of a name for products approved via 505(b)(2). Of course, when Camargo started business, there had been very few 505(b)(2) products approved.  Fast forward 10

2012 505(b)(2) Approvals – Record Year

Nice going!  2012 saw a record number of 505(b)(2) drugs approved - 47.  As is usual at this time of the year, I have prepared a listing of all of the approvals. This year, I have made the listing more useful - the table is

Suit to challenge use of REMS to block generics and 505(b)(2)

Innovators have used REMS to block generic and 505(b)(2) developers from gaining access to the reference listed drugs (RLD), effectively blocking their development.  The 2012 Congress failed to pass legislation to force innovators to provide access to the RLD's.  FDA believes it has no authority

New Generic Stability Requirements

After much delay, FDA just released the new Guidance on the stability requirements to file and obtain approval of a generic drug product and API under 505j.  The new requirements bring ANDAs closer in line with NDAs and ICH.  The new requirements as summarized in the

ViroPharma loses exclusivity appeal

As I wrote last week, on 4/9/12 the FDA denied ViroPharma's request for 3-year exclusivity for its antibiotic Vancocin and approved three generics.  ViroPharma immediately sued the heads of FDA and HHS and their Agencies.  In a U.S. District Court decision, the judge denied ViroPharma's motions to

Drug Development Planned Like the Titanic

How many drug development companies leave it up to the CRO or CMO to design or execute their studies or formulation/manufacturing without oversight?   Like those who boarded the Titantic 100 years ago, they seem to trust the mantra that their contractor's work is unsinkable.  MAP Pharmaceuticals

NIH Head Urges Repositioning/Repurposing

In a speech at yesterday’s 2012 TEDMED conference, the head of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, said  that there is a big gap between basic research and drugs for patients.  To bridge this gap he suggested 'some of those old drugs could be re-purposed —

Generic vs. 505(b)(2) Failure-to-Warn Liability

A recent editorial (may need subscription) in the New York Times opined that a recent Supreme Court decision - a "bizarre outcome" - "makes it virtually impossible to sue generic manufacturers for failing to provide adequate warning of a prescription drug’s dangers."   The court case the Times

What is an Approved DESI Product?

I am hesitant to contribute more information about so-called DESI drugs at the risk of further confusion.  My goal is always to provide clarity, so here goes. Fundamental to any discussion about DESI products is the definition of a drug product.  Let's just focus on

Stability Changes coming to ANDAs

This post comes from D.C. where I am attending the GPhA Fall Technical Conference.  We just completed a presentation by FDA's Glen Smith.  He  detailed the proposed new stability requirements for ANDA drug products.  It is essentially the adoption of ICH Q1A.  For readers of this

Don’t launch unapproved products after 9/19/2011

I had a call from a client who wondered if he could launch a new 'DESI' product. He had just read the FDA's recent announcement that it would take immediate enforcement action on any unapproved drug introduced into the market after September 19, 2011. So,

AB Rated 505(b)(2)’s

Can you have an “AB” rated 505(b)(2)?  Yes, as well as other Therapeutic Equivalent (TE) codes that are most often associated with the TE codes for generics in the Orange Book. Several years ago when I was speaking about the potential products that qualified under

Patent Cliff Causes Pfizer Cuts

Yesterday (08Jun11) The Wall Street Journal reported  (subscription may be required) that Pfizer will cut an additional $1 Billion - mostly in administrative costs.  These cuts come after cuts to sales and R&D. What's driving all of these cuts is two-fold:  loss of sales of

Why generic companies might like 505(b)(2)

How would you like to spend a couple of hundred thousands of dollars (or equivalent local currency) and countless months getting FDA approval and patent expiration and then face 14 competitors?  What's the ROI for that? June 1, 2011 Donepezil Hydrochloride Tablets, Matrix Laboratories Ltd.,

Ophthalmics: 21 CFR 314 94(a)(9)(iv) no longer applies

Who would have guessed that 21 CFR 314.94(a)(9)(iv) no longer applies to ophthalmics?  You wouldn't generally have expected it to just be cancelled - normally FDA must go through notice and comment, but apparently the FDA can make a regulation disappear by decree. 21 CFR

KV’s Makena® Part 1: 505(b)(1) or 505(b)2)?

In a previous posting, I provided background on KV's Makena (17?-hydroprogesterone caproate injection aka 17P). The development and regulatory history contains many lessons. In this posting I'd like to examine the choice of regulatory route. Makena was approved under 505(b)(2) as seen from the approval

KV’s Makena®: A trove of 505(b)(2) Lessons

On February 3, 2011 Hologic, Inc. (subsequently sold assets to KV Pharmaceuticals) received 505(b)(2) approval of Makena®, its 17?-hydroxyprogesterone caproate injection (17P) to reduce the risk of preterm birth in women with a singleton pregnancy who have a history of singleton spontaneous preterm birth. The

Approvals of ANDAs slows

I attended the 2011 Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) meeting last week. There was lots of useful information from several speakers. One area in particular stood out to me — the approvals of ANDAs are slowing and there is a growing awareness that the root cause

Contrave® Rejection: The Long and the (Too) Short of it

On February 1st Orexigen(R) Therapeutics, Inc. and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Takeda) announced that the FDA issued a complete response letter dated January 31, 2011 regarding the New Drug Application for Contrave® (naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl) extended-release tablets for the treatment of obesity, including weight loss

Injectables: 505j or 505(b)(2)?

Generic injectable drug products are treated differently than other routes of administration when it comes to permitted differences from the RLD. For most dosage forms, the sponsor is allowed to change excipients as long as the test product is bioequivalent to the RLD. No so

REMS for 505(b)(2) products?

Camargo has been involved in the development of several opioids and is often contacted by new sponsors to develop alternate formulations. One question often brought up is: does a 505(b)(2) approved opioid require a REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies — for more information on

2010 505(b)(2) Approvals

We join everyone else this time of year and develop a list - ours is a list of FDA approvals made under 505(b)(2). As widely reported (WSJ article here) FDA reported that approvals were down in 2010. Frankly, it's hard to tell what the figures

PDUFA Fee Waiver: Plan Ahead

For an original NDA, whether it is a 505(b)(1) or 505(b)(2), there is a PDUFA fee to be paid at the time of the submission of the application or the FDA will refuse to file it. For a small business ( a company of less

Safety Studies for 505(b)(2) Applications

The 505(b)(2) pathway is very often cost efficient and lower risk because the NDA application can reference existing preclinical and even human safety studies for the active ingredient. Most often, the excipients used are GRAS-listed. Thus, the applicant doesn't have to conduct much additional preclinical

Company Officials Personally Liable

As part of what appears to be an increasingly aggressive enforcement stance, there have recently been a number of statements coming from FDA in several settings suggesting that an increase in the number of prosecutions of senior corporate individuals is imminent. In the past, FDA

When is an IND required?

Most of us know that a BA/BE study of a generic can be done without an IND (the exception, called a Bio-IND, is when the drug being studied is cytotoxic or a radioactive labeled drug). In 505(b)(2) drug development we often are studying the BA/BE

505(b)(2)s with Minimal Sponsor Studies

The power of the 505(b)(2) process is realized when the sponsor has to conduct few, if any, studies to get their drug product approved. For many drugs there is wealth of data available in the public domain. The challenge is locating the data and then

FDA Places Hold on all ANDA PAS & CBE Reviews

In a blog posting earlier this year, we discussed the then median 26 month ANDA approval time and how it was getting longer. We now know that the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) currently has over 3000 ANDA post-approval supplements (PAS) waiting for action, of

Failed 505(b)(2)?: Vivus™ Qnexa

I am often asked about 505(b)(2) drug development failures. After all, 505(b)(2) is a regulatory pathway that is chosen because it is lower cost and has lower risk than a 505(b)(1). The lower risk is attributable to the reliance on the known safety and efficacy

Lannett’s Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution: 505(b)(2) or 505j?

Lannett Co., Inc. and its subsidiary Cody Laboratories manufacture Morphine Sulfate Immediate Release Concentrated Oral Solution 20mg/mL. Readers will remember that the various manufacturers of morphine solution were the first to receive FDA enforcement letters based on the Agency's Unapproved Drugs Initiative. Roxane Laboratories filed

New User Fees for 2011

FDA announced the new PDUFA user fees for fiscal year 2011 (starts October 1, 2010). The fee for a full application containing clinical data is $1,542,000.   For a supplement or an NDA not requiring clinical data, the fee is $771,000. A clinical study is generally

Still submitting paper ANDA applications?

Experience that shows electronic filing of NDA's, IND's and ANDA's helps speed up the review and approval of these applications. Perhaps because of the software cost and extensive training needed some companies still submit paper applications. Effective today, August 1, 2010, the address to submit

What should a license cost?

Many drug development projects stem from licensing an invention or product. Agreeing on the cost of the license is critical to the licensee to assure that the project is economically feasible. The licensor is interested in maximizing the value of the invention. How do you

Advisory Committee Meeting: Rosiglitazone

The media is crazed with interpretations of the FDA and GSK briefing materials for the Advisory Committee meeting this week regarding the safety of Avandia (rosiglitazone). For those readers who'd like to read the original documents themselves, here are the links.  July 13—14, 2010: Joint

India Tightening Inspections on Raw Materials

Cheaper is not always better. The cost of drug development demands that the pharmaceutical industry review the cost of all components of the program. In doing this, often the choice of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturer is driven by cost. Many of the API's

Labeling for Abuse-Deterrent Drugs

This past Tuesday (6/8/2010), we participated in a DIA-sponsored webinar entitled Understanding the Development and Label Allowances for 505(b)(2) Abuse-Deterrent Products. Joining me, Ruth Stevens our CSO and Cindy Phurrough, our Clinical Operations head, was Dr. Lynn Webster, Chief Medical Officer of Lifetree Clinical Research

Pro-Drug Denied

I am frequently asked if 505(b)(2) projects fail or whether any NDA submissions are rejected. My answer is that the vast majority succeeds and are eventually approved. Those that fail more often are due to money or design issues, not execution risks. Today I discuss

505(b)(2) Product Gains Revenue with FDA Actions Against DESI’s

Eurand reported improved financial performance for the 1st quarter of 2010. CEO Gearoid Faherty indicated the majority of the revenue gains could be attributed to Zenpep®, Eurand's delayed-release pancreatic insufficiency drug. Zenpep was approved in August 2009. The FDA has recently clamped down on unapproved

Target Product Profile

Today's blog courtesy of Lynn Gold, Ph.D. Camargo's VP of CMC. In any project development program an understanding of the program goal is critical to finding the shortest path to the final result. Generation of a Target Product Profile early in a development program facilitates

CMC Issues Again

Several previous blogs have discussed the importance of maintaining quality oversight of a contract facility to the drug development timeline. Below is an example of a generic manufacturer with problems maintaining quality oversight of its own multiple sites. Apotex, the Canadian generic manufacturer received a

Manufacturing Problems for Intravenous Emulsions

Many of the drug products manufactured by Hospira, including intravenous nutritional emulsions and propofol have been on the market for years. Hospira received a warning letter on April 12th citing two of its intravenous drug product manufacturing plants in North Carolina. The sites were inspected

505(b)(2): Repositioning, Repurposing or What?

Last week I made a presentation at the Society of Biomolecular Sciences (SBS) 2010 Annual Meeting in Phoenix (due to the Iceland volcano eruption, many participants are still there).  The occasion was the inaugural meeting of the newly formed Special Interest Group for Repositioning Drugs

Biosimilars or Biodissimilars?

On March 19 and 20th the University of Washington School of Pharmacy hosted "The Biosimilars Conference". This conference prompted some interesting discussions. A good background of the current legal status and issues around biosimilars can be found in the September 30th blog "Biosimilars; an Introduction".

505(b)(2) Approvals

I have seen various postings and articles on the number of 505(b)(2) approvals.  The numbers do not always agree.  Why don't they agree?  Many people look only at the approval letter.  The FDA will always indicate that the NDA was submitted as a 505(b).  But the

Exalgo Approved

Exalgo, hydromorphone extended release tablet was approved March 1, 2010. I waited a couple of days to see if it was approved under 505(b)(1) or 505(b)(2). At this writing, we don't know. We have previously detailed in this blog the regulatory approval saga for this

Can and Should ANDA Labeling Differ from the RLD?

In the past two months, two appellate courts, the Fifth Circuit and the Eighth Circuit have handed down decisions which essentially state that generic pharmaceutical companies can be sued in state courts for failure-to-warn regarding serious side effects, where the generic companies had conformed their