PDUFA Provisions Could Harm FDA and Industry, Expert Says

Some of the provisions in the FDA Revitalization Act, S. 1082 and H.R. 2900, would be ineffective, could cripple the FDA and would put unnecessary burdens on pharmaceutical companies, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest President Peter Pitts said at the Third Annual FDA Regulatory and Compliance Symposium at Harvard University. “Political battles are trumping public health,” he added.

The most important part of the bill is a provision funding the Reagan-Udall Institute and the agency’s Critical Path Initiative, according to Pitts. “This is the single most important advance and change in FDA legislation, possibly ever,” he said. “It really sets the FDA on the path to a 21st century perspective in terms of both protecting the public health and advancing the public health.”

The FDA’s recent label change for Coumadin (warfarin) to add information about genetic tests was “such an important advance,” Pitts said, adding that the agency should continue doing more with the Critical Path Initiative.

However, Pitts said some provisions in the legislation will be ineffective and could harm the FDA. He criticized a provision that would ban members with more than $50,000 in financial conflicts of interest from voting on advisory committees. The FDA recently issued a draft guidance of a proposed rule that would do the same thing.

Pitts also criticized the bill’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) requirements. He noted that early drafts of the bill contained language that would have made it mandatory for each new drug application to contain an REMS. “That’s like saying every new product is equally risky,” Pitts said.