We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
Accept
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • GMPs
    • FDA Enforcement Actions
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Drug Weekly
    • FDAnews
  • Device News
    • Trending
    • Commercial Operations
    • FDA Enforcement Actions
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • Research and Development
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • FDAnews Device Weekly
    • FDAnews
  • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Drug Books
    • Device Books
  • Training/Events
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • Events
    • Webinar Recordings
  • Resources
    • Form 483s Database
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • White Papers
  • CenterWatch
  • About Us
    • The Company
    • FDAnews Editorial Board
    • Contact Us
  • Advertising
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » BRAND COMPANIES ARE ABUSING THE SYSTEM TO DELAY GENERICS, SAY SENATORS

BRAND COMPANIES ARE ABUSING THE SYSTEM TO DELAY GENERICS, SAY SENATORS

July 5, 2006

The FDA may not be doing all it can to ensure timely approval of generics and prevent brand companies from exploiting the citizen petition process to delay competition, according to two members of the U.S. Senate.

In a letter to acting FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Trent Lott (R-Miss.) accused brand companies of purposely filing "frivolous" citizen petitions in order to put off FDA approval of generic companies abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). FDA review of a petition and the resulting delay can extend a brand company's monopoly on a drug from several months to more than two years, they wrote.

The letter cites a speech given last year by the FDA's chief counsel that stated that the agency has seen citizen petitions that it believed were submitted only for the purpose of forcing the FDA to review the arguments, regardless of the merits or the fact that the petitions could have been submitted much earlier.

One example in the letter is the generic version of Arava, which was held up for six months because of a brand company's petition submitted just before the ANDA was to be approved. The FDA denied the petition, but only after consumers paid an extra $110 million, the letter said.

"At a time when healthcare costs continue to increase exponentially, we cannot afford the added delay in the approval of lower-cost generic pharmaceuticals," the senators wrote. "These abusive petitions are strategically timed to delay generic competition, and as such are effectively creating a free patent term extension for the brand companies without any congressional oversight or approval." (http://www.fdanews.com/did/5_130/)

KEYWORDS FDAnews Drug Daily Bulletin

    Upcoming Events

    • 11Oct

      GMP Quality Management vSummit 2023: Where Quality Meets Risk

    • 16Oct

      MAGI@home Clinical Research Conference 2023

    • 26Oct

      FDA in 2024: What to Expect in an Election Year

    • 02Nov

      How UDI and UDI Data Can — and Must — Be Used for More Than Just Device Identification

    • 08Nov

      18th Annual FDA Inspections vSummit

    Featured Products

    • FDA, FTC and DOJ Enforcement of Medical Device Regulations

      FDA, FTC and DOJ Enforcement of Medical Device Regulations

    • Using Real-World Evidence in Drug and Device Submissions

      Using Real-World Evidence in Drug and Device Submissions

    Featured Stories

    • Adcomm Votes Down ALS Stem Cell Therapy, Debates Clinical Data vs. Personal Data

    • Reports Allege Philips Withheld Evidence of Ventilator Malfunctions for 11 Years

    • Summary Judgment Sought by Boehringer Ingelheim in its IRA Lawsuit

    • FDA Proposes New Rule on Who has Oversight on Lab Tests

    The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

    Learn More
    • Drug Products
      • Quality
      • Regulatory Affairs
      • GMPs
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Postmarket Safety
      • Submissions and Approvals
      • Research and Development
      • Commercial Operations
    • Device Products
      • Quality
      • Regulatory Affairs
      • QSR
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Postmarket Safety
      • Submissions and Approvals
      • Research and Development
      • Commercial Operations
    • Clinical Products
      • Trial Design
      • Data Integrity
      • GCP
      • Inspections and Audits
      • Transparency
    • Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell or Share My Data
    Footer Logo

    300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

    Phone 703.538.7600 – Toll free 888.838.5578

    Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing