Archive for May, 2012

  • May
  • 29
  • 2012

Latest Guidances on “Nano” Product Development and Regulation

Latest Guidances on “Nano” Product Development and Regulation

Two new draft guidances related to the use of nano materials in FDA-regulated products have been issued for public consideration and comments. These draft guidances, Safety of Nanomaterials in Cosmetic Products, and Assessing the Effects of Significant Manufacturing Process Changes, follow last year’s general guidance on when nanotechnology applies to FDA-regulated products. These draft guidances are the initial salvos in what promises to be an extensive and likely wide-ranging consideration by FDA of the many issues inherent in these new technologies. How long might this process take? Given that the rapidly advancing field of nanotechnology has a very clear clinical promise in many areas, yet has as many scientific questions as answers, we anticipate the nano dialogue will be long and evolving.

If these draft guidances are the first you have encountered, we highly recommend taking a step back to review the report of the 2007 Nanotechnology Task Force. This internal FDA group of experts was tasked with considering issues, with regard to safety, of the wide range of FDA-regulated products that are anticipated to use nanomaterials. Such materials, technically defined as having at least one dimension on the order of nanometers, were anticipated to have applications to human and animal drugs, medical devices, foods, cosmetics, etc., as well as non-medical products. Of greatest importance, these aren’t “your father’s Ford;” that is, a product that incorporates nanotechnology will be dramatically different in terms of chemical and structural properties, and risks, from those products previously available. Until proven otherwise, it is necessary to expect that surface reactivities, general biological activities, toxicologic reactions, structure-function relationships, environmental interactions, etc., will be novel for nanoproducts. Accordingly, the methods used to evaluate nanoproducts may need to be specially designed, and predicting how nanomaterials will interact with biological systems cannot be assumed or inferred from what is known before.

We believe it is important that FDA gradually develop considerable in-house, hands-on experience with these products, both from a research approach and from independent testing procedures. Some basic principles will certainly develop over time, principles that are likely to be applicable to many types of nanomaterials and nanoproducts. Even as such expertise develops it seems clear that not all issues can possibly be identified and understood at the time of a nanotechnology product’s approval, and we expect that post-market safety surveillance activities will similarly undergo revisions over time.

Although many FDA drug and device approvals represent incrementally improved versions of known active ingredients in previously-approved products, the likely result of incorporating nanomaterials will be quantum leaps to new FDA-regulated products. Just as DNA technology has revolutionized the field of disease understanding and drug development, we think nanotechnology has equivalent potential to dramatically alter the products we use every day. This is an FDA blog, and therefore there is an unavoidable focus on regulatory issues, yet in this particular arena the science will drive the regulation more than vice-versa.

Posted by Bob Roth, Vice President and Worldwide Medical Director. For more information, please contact Bob at bob.roth@weinberggroup.com.
 

  • May
  • 21
  • 2012

Extended Review Timeline for Certain Applications under Proposed PDUFA V

Extended Review Timeline for Certain Applications under Proposed PDUFA V

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) is due to be reauthorized by the end of September this year. Along with the usual increases in fees, the latest version of the act (PDUFA V) includes some new initiatives. One of these is a program for enhanced review transparency and communication which will apply to all New Molecular Entity (NME) New Drug Applications (NDAs) and original Biologics License Applications (BLAs). This includes applications that are submitted following a Refuse-To-File action.

Included in the program are specific meetings between the Agency and the Sponsor (e.g. pre-submission meeting, late-cycle meeting) as well as other communications. One very important change to this program affects the overall review timeline for a submission. For NME NDA and original BLA submissions that are filed by FDA under the program, the PDUFA review clock will begin at the conclusion of the 60 calendar day filing review period that begins on the date of FDA receipt of the original submission. What this means is that sponsors who submit NME NDAs and original BLAs on or after October 1, 2012 will have a two month longer review period than those submitted prior to that date. For sponsors looking at a filing date near the September 30th deadline, this new program provides additional incentive to file before the new timeline takes effect.

Posted by Marla Scarola, Senior Consultant. For more information, please contact Marla at marla.scarola@weinberggroup.com.

  • May
  • 14
  • 2012

GRAS – One of FDA’s Most Widely Misunderstood Acronyms (Part 2)

GRAS – One of FDA’s Most Widely Misunderstood Acronyms (Part 2)

Another of the widely held misconceptions about GRAS status is that it means that an ingredient is considered safe by the FDA, irrespective of how much is used and for what purpose. This interpretation is, however, quite different than what is stated in Section 201(s) of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic Act wherein GRAS refers to a conclusion regarding safety of a food substance “under the intended conditions of use.” Thus, GRAS is a conditional designation rather than a broad acknowledgment of safety. The intended conditions of use under which a substance is considered to be GRAS are noted in the CFR in Sections 182, 184, and 186. These sections pertain to direct addition to foods in order to achieve a physical, nutritional, or other technical effect in the food (Sections 182 and 184 of the CFR) or indirect incorporation in foods as result of use of the substance in food manufacturing, processing, or packaging (Sections 182 and 186 of the CFR). In some cases, GRAS substances are broadly characterized by the type of intended effect and in other cases very specific limits on the type of use considered to be GRAS are specified. Irrespective of whether the use description is broad or narrow, it is a stipulation of the GRAS designation that when a substance is directly added to food for an intended purpose, the amount used is not greater than what is needed to achieve the intended effect. In most cases the CFR does not specify what use levels are acceptable for a specific use, leaving the discretion about how much to use to the food manufacturers. However, many substances are determined to be GRAS only when used at levels below a certain maximum. If a manufacturer uses a GRAS-designated substance for purposes other than those described in the CFR or in amounts much greater than what is reasonably needed to achieve the specified effect described in the CFR, the substance may no longer be considered GRAS. Even substances designated as GRAS for multiple purposes were given GRAS status taking into consideration the total potential exposures based on known uses in foods at the time that the designation was made. New uses or amounts of use that deviate significantly from those envisioned at the time that the GRAS determination was made may not necessarily be considered GRAS; even for those substances with a multipurpose GRAS designation. Limitations on exposure are often found for GRAS substances that have the potential to migrate into foods during manufacturing, processing, or packaging. Consistent with the concept of not using more of a GRAS substance than is needed for an intended effect when that substance is intentionally added to foods, the FDA stipulates that the amounts of GRAS substances that indirectly migrate into foods should be minimized. Thus, even though maximum use levels are not stipulated in most cases in Sections 182, 184, and 186 of the CFR, potential exposure is a principal determinant of whether a substance is considered to be GRAS. Potential exposure should also be considered when citing a substance’s GRAS status as evidence of safety of a substance for a non-food use. Any conclusion regarding the safety of a substance that relies on GRAS status should consider the route and extent of exposure for the non-food to assure that it does not deviate in significant ways from the GRAS food use cited in the CFR.

Posted by Carrie Rabe, Senior Consultant. For more information, please contact Carrie at carrie.rabe@weinberggroup.com.

Posts by Date

May 2012
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Recent Comments