Justia Drugs & Biotech Opinion Summaries

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation manufactures Entresto, a drug used to treat chronic heart failure. MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. sought approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market a generic version of Entresto by submitting an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA). MSN’s application excluded certain methods of use protected by Novartis’s patents and claimed that the generic drug contained the same active ingredients as Entresto. The FDA approved MSN’s application, prompting Novartis to challenge the approval, arguing that the generic’s labeling and composition were unlawfully different from Entresto.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed Novartis’s claims under the Administrative Procedure Act. Novartis argued that the FDA’s approval of MSN’s ANDA and denial of Novartis’s citizen petitions were arbitrary and capricious, particularly regarding the omission of patented dosing regimens and indications from the generic’s label, and the determination that the generic contained the same active ingredients as Entresto. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA, finding that the agency’s actions were reasonable and consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements. Novartis appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the FDA reasonably concluded the generic drug’s labeling changes were permissible to avoid patent infringement and did not render the generic less safe or effective for non-patented uses. The court also found that the FDA’s determination that the generic and Entresto shared the same active ingredients was supported by scientific evidence and regulatory guidance. The court applied de novo review to legal questions and deferred to the FDA’s scientific expertise, ultimately upholding the agency’s approval of MSN’s ANDA. View "Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Kennedy" on Justia Law

A pharmaceutical company sought approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market tasimelteon, a drug previously approved for a rare sleep disorder, as a treatment for jet lag. The company submitted results from several clinical trials, focusing on both objective sleep measures and subjective assessments of alertness and next-day functioning. The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research issued a complete response letter indicating that the application did not provide substantial evidence of efficacy, particularly criticizing the measurement of next-day impairment and the tools used for subjective endpoints. The company engaged in further discussions and dispute resolution with the FDA, including proposing a narrower indication for approval, but these efforts were unsuccessful.After the FDA issued a formal notice of opportunity for a hearing (NOOH), the company requested a hearing and submitted expert declarations supporting the adequacy of its clinical evidence. The FDA ultimately denied both the application and the hearing request, finding no genuine and substantial issue of fact warranting a hearing. The company then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for review, arguing that the FDA was required to hold a hearing, that material factual disputes existed, that the FDA’s decision-making was arbitrary and capricious, and that the final decision violated the Appointments Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not require the FDA to hold a hearing before denying every new drug application, but the agency must grant a hearing if there are material factual disputes. The court found that, in this case, the FDA’s refusal to hold a hearing was arbitrary and capricious because the company’s expert evidence created genuine disputes over the adequacy of the clinical trials. The court remanded the case to the FDA for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. FDA" on Justia Law

Levoleucovorin is better known by the brand-name Fusilev, which Spectrum has sold since 2008 for the purpose of counteracting liver damage during a type of chemotherapy known as methotrexate therapy. Under the Orphan Drug Act amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360aa-ee, intended to increase incentives for companies to develop new orphan drugs, Spectrum received exclusive marketing rights to the Methotrexate Indications for seven years. Spectrum then received approval from FDA to market Fusilev for an altogether new use: helping patients with advanced colorectal cancer to manage their pain. Two days after Spectrum’s exclusivity period expired for the Methotrexate Indications, Sandoz received FDA approval to market a generic version of levoleucovorin for the Methotrexate Indications. Spectrum argued that Sandoz’s sole intended use of the generic was to treat patients with colorectal cancer, even though the label provided for use only in patients undergoing methotrexate therapy. The district court granted summary judgment against Spectrum. FDA concluded that it need look no further than the use indicated in Sandoz’s abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to make certain the generic drug will not trench on the prior grant of exclusivity to Spectrum. The court agreed and found FDA's interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act reasonable. The statute does not unambiguously foreclose FDA's interpretation that “for such disease or condition” refers only to the uses included on a drug’s label. The court noted that, to the extent FDA has discretion in choosing how best to implement the Orphan Drug Act, it is up to the agency to strike the balance between the congressional policy goals of drug affordability and innovation. The court rejected Spectrum's remaining arguments and affirmed the judgment. View "Spectrum Pharm., Inc. v. Burwell" on Justia Law

After Congress directed the FDA to establish a twelve-member Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee to, among other things, report on the safety of menthol cigarettes, plaintiffs filed suit claiming that the FDA appointed to the Committee three members with pecuniary interests hostile to their products, in violation of relevant conflict-of-interests statutes and regulations, and that these appointments injured plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim that the FDA’s appointments of these Committee members caused them three injuries: (1) an increased risk that the FDA will regulate menthol tobacco products adversely to plaintiffs’ interests; (2) access by the challenged Committee members to plaintiffs’ confidential information, with a probability of their using the information to plaintiffs’ detriment; and (3) the shaping of the menthol report to support the challenged members’ consulting and expert witness businesses, with injuries flowing both from the report itself and from its use as support for their expert testimony and consulting. The court concluded that plaintiffs' alleged injuries are too remote and uncertain. Because the alleged injuries are insufficiently imminent to confer standing, the court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction and dissolved the district court's injunction barring the use of the menthol report and ordering the reconstitution of the Committee. View "R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA" on Justia Law