Generics

We have seen recent articles in which both FDA and Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) are touting their progress made under the Generic Drug User Fee Act of 2012 (GDUFA). But we are almost 10 months into year one of the program and hiring is just really ramping up.

The effective “expiry” of a satisfactory inspection and the need to re-inspect a facility before granting of ANDA approval has become a practical problem for the generic industry, which carries the risk of potentially significant consequences including marketing delays, loss of projected revenues and forfeiture of exclusivity entitlement in a worse-case scenario. In light of this continuing challenge, and in light of some existing ambiguities regarding FDA inspection policy, Lachman contacted CDER’s Office of Compliance to determine its current policy regarding conduct of inspections required in support of approval of ANDAs.

The Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) yesterday released a study showing that patent settlements netted the U.S. healthcare system savings of $25.5 billion dollars over the time period 2005-2012.

We heard it was coming ever since the Department of Justice hinted the FDA was contemplating a change to permit generic application holders to revise their labeling to make safety changes. Something the Supreme Court actually said generic companies could not do in the Mensing and Bartlett decisions.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) again confirmed that labels for generic products must be the same as the innovator drug that they copy. In addition, SCOTUS determined that the claim of design defects claim in a product liability case cannot be asserted against a generic because the generic product must have the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration and strength as the product that it copies.