BioSpace.com

Biotech and Pharmaceutical
News & Jobs
Search the Site
 
   
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Channel Medical Device and Diagnostics Channel Clinical Research Channel BioSpace Collaborative    Job Seekers:  Register | Login          Employers:  Register | Login  

NEWSLETTERS
Free Newsletters
Archive
My Subscriptions

NEWS
News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
PLoS
Search News
Post Your News
JoVE

CAREER NETWORK
Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Browse Biotech Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

HOTBEDS
Regional News
US & Canada
  Biotech Bay
  Biotech Beach
  Genetown
  Pharm Country
  BioCapital
  BioMidwest
  Bio NC
  BioForest
  Southern Pharm
  BioCanada East
  US Device
Europe
Asia

DIVERSITY

INVESTOR
Market Summary
News
IPOs

PROFILES
Company Profiles

START UPS
Companies
Events

INTELLIGENCE
Research Store

INDUSTRY EVENTS
Biotech Events
Post an Event
RESOURCES
Real Estate
Business Opportunities

 News | News By Subject | News by Disease News By Date | Search News
eNewsletter Signup
Miles
Km80.5

   

BioPharm Executive: No Sleep, But Plenty of REMS


10/27/2009 12:16:44 PM

Bookmark and Share

No Sleep, But Plenty of REMS

When David Letterman went public with his sordid story of adultery and blackmail a few weeks ago, a few media outlets raised an interesting question: Why, exactly, is blackmail illegal? The individual acts behind typical blackmail--threatening to publicize embarrassing information and alternatively being paid not to publicize information--are both perfectly legal. Making a crime out of legal activities that transpire in the wrong order (solicitation of payment being the key) seems, from a certain perspective, a bit tortured.

I had a similar feeling when I recently read about Allergan's federal lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration, seeking a ruling that would allow them to discuss off-label uses of Botox with physicians.

Why, exactly, is off-label promotion illegal? Or more specifically, why does the prohibition not interfere with First Amendment rights? I'm not a lawyer, so perhaps there are clearer legal arguments than I realize. But if that's the case, they've apparently never been tested in court before--no company that I know of has has raised First Amendment objections to FDA's off-label promotion rules before this.

What makes it more interesting is that Allergan is trying to shake off the shackles of government regulation just as FDA tries to clamp down further. The catalyst for the lawsuit was FDA's demand, made in September, that Allergan institute a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Botox. Under the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), the agency has broad discretion to require a REMS--a formal plan that must be submitted to the agency and approved--if it feels public safety requires one.

For Allergan, this requirement highlights the difficult line that many companies are regularly forced to walk, and that in Allergan's case may be well-nigh impossible. Much of Botox's use is off-label, so how can the company effectively discuss and mitigate risks without actually being able to talk about how the drug is really used? One can imagine some absurdist theater as the company tries to mutely navigate the process as currently regulated. It will be fascinating to see what the courts have to say.

- Karl Thiel

Read the BioPharm Executive online newsletter October 2009.

Sign-up for the free monthly subscription to the BioPharm Executive.

More By Karl Thiel


Read at BioSpace.com

   

ADD TO DEL.ICIO.US    ADD TO DIGG    ADD TO FURL    ADD TO STUMBLEUPON    ADD TO TECHNORATI FAVORITES