Proposed Rule Re Submitting Clinical Trial Registration and Results, Including Adverse Event Information, To ClinicalTrials.gov Database

As mentioned on our Health Industry Washington Watch blog, the National Institutes of Health has released a proposed rule designed to provide clarity on the requirements surrounding the submission of information to ClinicalTrials.gov, as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.

Among the proposed requirements is summary results submission for clinical trials involving all pharmaceuticals, medical devices and biological products, regardless of whether they have been approved, licensed or cleared by the Food and Drug Administration, timetable restrictions for the registration of a clinical trial and submission of summary results, and guidelines for the reporting of adverse events.

The proposed rule will officially be published on November 21, 2014, and comments will be accepted for 90 days thereafter.

To read the entire post, click here.

How to Mitigate Compliance Requirements and Code of Conduct Obligations with Data Protection Regulation: Reed Smith Paris Provided Some Illustrative Examples

As reported on our Global Regulatory Enforcement Blog, Reed Smith Paris partner Daniel Kadar and counsel Séverine Martel hosted on 25 October 2012, a new edition of the conference cycle organized by Reed Smith Paris with the European American Chamber of Commerce, dedicated to the mitigation of Compliance obligations, particularly as set forth in Codes of Conduct, with data protection requirements.

The panel, which included compliance directors of French health care giant SANOFI and General Electric Health, brought examples of how to mitigate compliance obligations, in particular as set forth in Codes of Conduct most International organisations have now adopted, with applicable data protection regulation.  The first example was dedicated to the New French Health Care Regulation and its transparency and disclosure requirements as to the existence (and the financial range) of agreements between the health care and cosmetics industry with health care professionals (including Medicine students), showing that the disclosure of financial and private information (such as the home address for the medicine students) had to be managed carefully with respect to the data owner’s information and access rights.  To read the full post, click here.

VA Seeks to Regulate Promotional Activities by Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives

This post was written by Lorraine Campos and Joelle Laszlo.

The Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on pharmaceutical sales representatives' access to and activities in VA medical facilities.  Drug and Drug-Related Supply Promotion by Pharmaceutical Company Sales Representatives at VA Facilities, 75 Fed. Reg. 24,510 (May 5, 2010).

The proposed rule is designed to "reduce or eliminate any potential for disruption in the patient care environment, manage activities and promotions at VA facilities, and provide sales representatives with a consistent standard of permissible business activities at VA facilities."  One way the proposed rule endeavors to meet those aims is by requiring that any drug or drug-related promotion at a VA medical facility (broadly defined to include any VA-run source of medical services or benefits) is consistent with the published "criteria-for-use" of the subject drug or drug-related supply, which itself must not have been classified as "non-promotable."  The proposed rule also requires: (1) that any corporate-furnished educational program or materials be approved in advance by the target VA facility's Chief of Pharmacy (or equivalent official); (2) that sales representatives make appointments in advance of VA facility visits; and (3) that gifts (of anything but drugs and food) and donations of drugs and drug-related supplies comply with current restrictions, and, with respect to the latter, be approved for acceptance and subject to proper storage, documentation, and dispensing.  Potential penalties for non-compliance will include limitations on VA facility access, though the VA notes that since most sales representatives are generally well-behaved, it "do[es] not envision that the proposed paragraph [on penalties for non-compliance] will be invoked with regularity." 

The VA asserts that the proposed rule will largely formalize what are currently informal practices and therefore, if anything, the rule will make it easier for pharmaceutical representatives to act, knowing that they will not be subject to some unwritten code.  This may be true insofar in many respects.  But the proposed rule's pre-approval requirements for “educational programs and materials,” may create confusion. For example, it is unclear whether the VA would (or could) apply the VA’s distinction between promotional programs and “educational” (non-promotional) programs. Moreover, the requirement for prior content approval might create FDA compliance concerns or even raise First Amendment issues. 

Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the VA on or before July 6, 2010.  Click here to read the full text of the notice.

FDA's Emerging Internet Policy: Themes and Recommendations From Public Hearing on Promotion of FDA-Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools

This post was written by Areta Kupchyk, Kevin Madagan, and Paul Sheives.

Following a decade-long hiatus, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) appears ready to finally address industry Internet communications. FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (“CDER”) in collaboration with other divisions within FDA, held a two-day hearing on November 12th and 13th to help the Agency determine how the statutory provisions, regulations, and policies governing advertising and promotional labeling should be applied to product-related information on the Internet and emerging technologies.

Much has changed since 1996, the last time FDA held a public hearing on this topic. The Internet is now widely used as a medium for companies to disseminate information about their products, and the Internet's ability to facilitate communication and collaboration has substantially evolved over the last few years primarily as a result of a second (Web 2.0) and now third (Web 3.0) generation of Internet development and website design. The inherent flexibility and intelligence of Web 2.0 and 3.0 is great for society, but also fraught with risk for an FDA-regulated industry that must carefully control its interactions with consumers and health care practitioners. Indeed, the industry has largely avoided using Web 2.0 out of fear that any social media use may result in FDA enforcement action. 

Given the above, it is not surprising that FDA’s hearing was a welcome relief to many. Even though the hearing technically was only an information gathering exercise for FDA, it was an important opportunity for industry leaders and stakeholders to contribute to FDA’s emerging Internet policy. This Client Alert provides a brief summary of the major themes and recommendations from the presenters at the hearing.

In addition, please see a related commentary on the blog Adlaw by Request (“FDA Seeks To Understand Social Media”). Adlaw by Request is a blog designed to provide regular news on advertising law developments in the United States and elsewhere, with practical commentary and analysis from Reed Smith’s Advertising, Technology and Media (ATM) practice.

AdvaMed Issues Revised Code of Ethics on Interactions

This post was written by Elizabeth Carder-Thompson, Gina M. Cavalier, Matthew E. Wetzel.

On December 18, 2008, the Advanced Medical Technology Association (“AdvaMed”), the national trade association of medical technology manufacturers, issued a revised Code of Ethics on Interactions with Health Care Professionals (the “AdvaMed Code” or “Code”). The revised AdvaMed Code, which becomes effective July 1, 2009, contains several changes that will significantly impact the medical device industry. These include:

  • The addition of guidelines for the payment of royalties to health care professionals;
  • The inclusion of a new section on the provision of evaluation and demonstration products to customers at no charge;
  • More comprehensive guidelines for furnishing reimbursement and health economics information to health care professionals;
  • A prohibition on the provision of entertainment and recreation;
  • A prohibition on the provision of non-educational branded promotional items such as pens, notepads, mugs and similar items; and
  • Increased restrictions on the provision of restaurant meals or meals at other off-site venues.

The Client Alert discusses the principal changes to the AdvaMed Code, highlights several compliance considerations that medical device companies should consider when implementing the revised Code and includes a chart detailing the original and revised AdvaMed Codes and highlighting the new provisions that will become effective in July 2009.

Reed Smith was honored to serve as outside counsel to AdvaMed in connection with drafting both the current and the revised Code and would be pleased to answer any questions or provide additional information.