Tag Archives: FDA

Joint Letter to Support FDA Proposed Rule Reducing Nicotine Levels in Cigarettes

Legislation, Policy, ,

September 12, 2022

Dr. Robert Califf
Commissioner
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993

Re: Nicotine Standard

Dear Dr. Califf:

The undersigned public health, medical and professional organizations write in strong support of your recent announcement that FDA will issue a proposed rule to reduce the nicotine level in cigarettes to non-addictive or minimally addictive levels. Such a standard would generate massive public health benefits, preventing millions of young people from smoking and dramatically reducing the number of people who die from tobacco-caused diseases. We urge you to move forward with this proposal as quickly as possible.

Despite great progress in curbing smoking prevalence in recent years, tobacco use – primarily smoking – remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in the United States, killing more than 480,000 Americans every year.1 Sixteen million Americans are currently living with a tobacco-caused disease.2 Over 30 million Americans currently smoke, and every day over 1,600 kids try their first cigarette.3 Approximately half of people who smoke will die prematurely as a result of their addiction, losing at least a decade of life on average compared to those who do not smoke.4

We applaud the Administration for taking action to reduce tobacco use as part of its Cancer Moonshot initiative.5 Cigarette smoking causes about 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S.6 Reductions in tobacco use have already had an impact on cancer rates. According to CDC, 60 percent of the decrease in cancer death rates among men and 40 percent of the decrease among women from their peak in 1990 to 1991 until 2014 were due to declines in tobacco-related cancer deaths.7 More progress can be made and reducing nicotine levels will have a profound impact.

Nicotine is the primary addictive agent in cigarettes and other tobacco products. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, “the addiction caused by the nicotine in tobacco smoke is critical in the transition of smokers from experimentation to sustained smoking and, subsequently, in the maintenance of smoking for the majority of smokers who want to quit.”8 Thus, reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes to non-addictive or minimally addictive levels will prevent experimentation by the young from becoming a lifetime of addiction and tobacco-caused disease. It also will reduce the level of nicotine dependence in adults who smoke, making it easier for them to quit.

Current evidence establishes the potentially historic lifesaving impact of reducing nicotine content in cigarettes to non-addictive or minimally addictive levels. As you know, FDA estimated in 2018 that approximately 5 million additional adults who smoke could quit smoking within one year of implementation and, by the year 2100, more than 33 million people – mostly youth and young adults – would have avoided becoming regular smokers. Smoking rates could drop to as low as 1.4 percent, resulting in more than 8 million fewer tobacco-caused deaths through the end of the century.9 The dimensions of this public health benefit make timely implementation of this policy a moral imperative.

Reducing nicotine levels in cigarettes to achieve these enormous public health gains is technologically feasible. As FDA noted in its earlier Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), there are a wide range of available technologies to reduce nicotine in cigarettes, including “through tobacco blending and cross-breeding plants, genetic engineering, and chemical extraction.”10 Indeed, the tobacco industry’s own documents show that the industry has a long history of manipulating nicotine levels in cigarettes to make them more addictive. As U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler determined in her landmark opinion finding that the major cigarette companies had violated the federal anti-racketeering statute, “Defendants have designed their cigarettes to precisely control nicotine delivery levels and provide doses of nicotine sufficient to create and sustain addiction.”11 Surely the companies cannot now credibly maintain that they are unable to reduce nicotine levels to no longer sustain addiction. In addition, FDA has noted that recent scientific studies do not support concerns that nicotine reduction would cause people who smoke to compensate by increasing the number of cigarettes smoked or inhaling more deeply to increase nicotine intake. Studies of very low nicotine cigarettes have not found evidence of compensatory smoking but have found demonstrable reductions in cigarettes smoked per day and in exposure to harmful smoking constituents.12

To realize the full potential public health benefits of a nicotine product standard, FDA must extend that standard beyond cigarettes, to other combustible tobacco products. Exempting other combustible products would invite tobacco manufacturers to market existing, or develop new, non-cigarette substitutes, like the small, flavored cigars the industry introduced after flavored cigarettes (except menthol) were removed from the market. It also would make the exempted products a potential vehicle for youth initiation. Thus, we urge FDA to make any nicotine reduction product standard applicable to other combustible tobacco products.

Reducing nicotine in cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products will complement FDA’s proposed rules to prohibit menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars. By addressing flavors and nicotine levels, FDA will be able to target both what attracts youth to these products and what addicts them. FDA should continue its work to promptly finalize and implement the menthol cigarette and flavored cigar proposed rules. Moreover, FDA should continue to address high rates of e-cigarette use by youth by promptly completing statutorily required premarket reviews and removing from the market those products that are not “appropriate for the protection of the public health.”

Reducing the nicotine content in cigarettes and other combustible tobacco products will dramatically reduce addiction, disease, and premature death from tobacco. We applaud FDA for setting forth a bold plan to protect kids and public health and urge the agency to act quickly to complete the rulemaking process. Every day that passes means more kids moving from experimentation to addiction and more adults who want to quit, and try to quit, but remain addicted to a lethal product.

Respectfully submitted,

AASA, The School Superintendents Association
Academy of General Dentistry
Action on Smoking and Health
Allergy & Asthma Network
Alpha-1 Foundation
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
American Association for Cancer Research
American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research
American Association for Respiratory Care
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American College of Cardiology
American College of Physicians
American Dental Association
American Heart Association
American Public Health Association
American Society of Addiction Medicine
Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights
Association for Clinical Oncology
Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use & Dependence
Association of Black Cardiologists
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund
Catholic Health Association of the United States
Center For Black Equity
Children’s Health Fund
Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS
Common Sense Media
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA)
COPD Foundation
Counter Tools
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
Emphysema Foundation of America
Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA)
First Focus on Children
GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing
LGBTQ+ Equality
GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer
HealthHIV
International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
Kaiser Permanente
March of Dimes
National Alliance to Advance Adolescent Health
National Association of Hispanic Nurses
National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
National Association of School Nurses
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Black Church Initiative
National Black Nurses Association
National Education Association
National Hispanic Medical Association
National LGBT Cancer Network
National Medical Association
National Native Network
National Network of Public Health Institutes
National Tongan American Society
North American Quitline Consortium
Oncology Nursing Society
Parents Against Vaping e-cigarettes (PAVe)
Preventing Tobacco Addiction
Foundation/Tobacco 21
Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association
Respiratory Health Association
SADD
Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
The Center for Black Health and Equity
The Society for State Leaders of Health
and Physical Education
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
Trust for America’s Health
Truth Initiative
US COPD Coalition

CC: Dr. Brian King, Director of the Center for Tobacco Products

1. HHS, The Health Consequences of Smoking – 50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2014 (2014 SG Report).
2. Id.
3. CDC, “Tobacco Product Use Among Adults—United States, 2020,” MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
2022;71:397–405, March 18, 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7111a1.htms_cid=mm7111a1_w. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS, Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, NSDUH: Detailed Tables, Table 4.9A https://www.samhsa.gov/data/report/2019-nsduh-detailed-tables
4. 2014 SG Report
5. The White House, “President Biden Reignites Cancer Moonshot to End Cancer as We Know It,” Fact Sheet. February, 2, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/02/fact-sheet-president-
biden-reignites-cancer-moonshot-to-end-cancer-as-we-know-it/
6. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2022. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2022.
https://www.cancer.org/research/cancer-facts-statistics/all-cancer-facts-figures/cancer-facts-figures-2022.html
7. CDC, “Vital Signs: Disparities in Tobacco-Related Cancer Incidence and Mortality—United States, 2004-2013,” MMWR 65(44): 1212-1218, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/pdfs/mm6544a3.pdf/.
8. 2014 SG Report.
9. Apelberg, BJ, et al., “Potential Public Health Effects of Reducing Nicotine Levels in Cigarettes in the United States,” New England Journal of Medicine, published online March 15, 2018. See also, “Tobacco Product Standard for Nicotine Level of Combusted Cigarettes,” Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 83 Fed. Reg. 11818, 11820 (March 16, 2018)(ANPRM)
10. ANPRM, at 11820.
11. U.S. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 449 F.Supp. 2d, 1, 309 (D.D.C. 2006), aff’d in relevant part. 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir.2009).
12. ANPRM, at 11820.

Will the FDA change how it vets drugs following the Alzheimer’s debacle?

News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News, , ,

Max Kozlov, Nature, May 13, 2022

Nearly a year after the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave the green light to a controversial drug to treat Alzheimer’s disease, lawmakers are attempting to amend the process that led to its approval.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees drug safety and biomedical research, announced last week that it hopes to grant the FDA greater authority to rescind accelerated approvals if a company fails to complete follow-up studies on the treatment in a reasonable amount of time.

The provision, which was introduced as part of an FDA funding reauthorization bill, likely to be passed before September, comes on the heels of the agency’s 2021 approval of aducanumab, an antibody drug shown to reduce the accumulation of plaques in the brain associated with the progression of Alzheimer’s. Despite a nearly unanimous vote against the approval by an independent panel of experts, the agency fast-tracked the drug, which was developed by Biogen, a biotechnology company based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Three advisory-panel members resigned in protest against the decision, and the approval is the subject of multiple investigations by federal regulators.

Aducanumab is not the only reason that this drug-approval pathway is coming under fire: since its inception, the programme has led to 279 treatments reaching the market, with nearly two-thirds in the past decade alone (see ‘Growing momentum for accelerated approval’). The programme’s increasing popularity signals a shift away from its original intent, says Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a non-profit organization in Washington DC. “Accelerated approval started out as a special programme for a small number of drugs, and now most cancer drugs are going through accelerated or some other expedited pathway,” she says.

Companies, moreover, have been slow to produce the follow-up studies promised as part of the approval process. The FDA has limited power to compel them to provide the data, but the legislative proposal — which could still change significantly as it wends its way through the House of Representatives and the Senate — could grant it more authority to do so.

Days before his appointment in February, FDA commissioner Robert Califf pledged to make accelerated-approval reform a priority for the agency. Researchers who spoke to Nature agree that reforms are needed to protect the integrity of the programme, and that the proposed legislation is a good start. But they also recommended more agency oversight and other changes that would further prevent pharmaceutical firms from abusing this route to the market.

“Instead of the drug companies living up to and working to ensure that they are employing the accelerated-approval pathway as intended, we have too many that are willing to take advantage of the loopholes where they can find them,” says David Mitchell, president of Patients for Affordable Drugs, a non-profit organization in Washington DC, who serves as a consumer representative on the independent panel that reviews cancer drugs for the FDA.

The need for speed

The FDA created the accelerated-approval pathway in 1992, largely in response to the HIV–AIDS crisis, to get urgently needed drugs to the market without delay. Instead of demonstrating efficacy through clinically-meaningful endpoints, such as patient survival or reduction of symptoms, drug candidates reviewed under this pathway often rely on what are known as surrogate endpoints, which may be faster or easier to track than conventional clinical-trial endpoints. For example, tumour shrinkage is a common surrogate used in cancer-drug clinical trials, but this metric is not necessarily linked to a direct benefit to patients.

Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist and global health specialist at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, was among the group that persuaded the FDA to adopt this programme. “We pushed for this accelerated approval pathway because people were dying,” he says. “I’m HIV positive, so I get the desperation and need for hope.”

The pathway has turbocharged the number of immunotherapies and cancer treatments on the market. But some of these drugs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, despite, in many cases, limited data showing their clinical utility. Gonsalves argues that the programme has been co-opted by the pharmaceutical industry to speed approvals. Cancer treatments approved through the pathway have made it to market on average about three years earlier than they would through standard routes. And a single study using surrogate endpoints could be enough to get a treatment on the market.

Part of the problem, says Caleb Alexander, an internal-medicine specialist and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, is that drug companies aren’t upholding their end of the bargain with timely post-market studies confirming the benefits of the drug. Some researchers question whether companies are given too much time to produce such data. A 2021 analysis found that 13% of drugs granted accelerated approval between 1992 and 2016 hadn’t been converted to full approval within five years — and remained on the market for a median of 9.5 years without the data needed for conversion.

[….]

Post-market trials can take a long time, especially for slowly-progressing conditions such as neurodegenerative diseases, says a spokesperson for the Rare Disease Company Coalition, an organization in Washington DC that represents 21 pharmaceutical firms.

It is also difficult for companies to recruit participants, because people would much rather be guaranteed an approved medicine than risk getting a placebo. Instead of demanding that a company stop selling a drug that hasn’t been converted to full approval, says Zuckerman, the agency often requests that the company voluntarily withdraw it from the market. “The FDA loses an enormous amount of leverage once a product is approved,” says Alexander.

[….]

How effective the proposed rule changes for the US FDA would be is unclear. Although they would make it easier for the agency to withdraw approval, they would also lengthen the bureaucratic process of rescinding approvals. This defangs the provision, Zuckerman says. She would have preferred to stick with an earlier proposal, which would have automatically revoked approvals once confirmatory trials were one year overdue.

Zuckerman also recommends that the FDA commissioner’s office create a separate independent advisory group to review agency approvals that go against advisory panel recommendations — as happened for aducanumab. “The vast majority of advisory-committee votes recommend approval, so when they don’t recommend approval, there’s usually a really good reason,” she says.

Alexander suggests using health-care coverage as leverage. The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in Baltimore, for example, decides which treatments will be funded for tens of millions of US residents. Earlier this year, concerned about the efficacy of aducanumab, the CMS stated that it would cover the annual US$28,800 cost of the drug only for people enrolled in clinical trials.

Although that decision is nearly unprecedented, Alexander thinks that the CMS should consider a lower reimbursement rate for other accelerated-approval treatments that have not yet gained full approval. Such a move could “light a fire underneath manufacturers” to complete their trials, he says. “Why should taxpayers be on the hook for paying the full price of a drug when we don’t know the full scope of its safety and effectiveness?” he asks.

[….]

Reform won’t be simple. Once a medicine enters the market, Mitchell says, “drug companies aren’t anxious to find a reason to take it off”.

Still, many researchers and drug-safety advocates are eager to see change. “We started out trying to fix a pendulum that was too far in one direction,” says Zuckerman, “and look how far we’ve come in this direction now.”

To read the entire article, click here.

Public Comment PDUFA VII Commitment Letter (Docket #FDA-2021-N-0891) From the National Center for Health Research

Policy, Testimony & Briefings, , ,

October 28, 2021 

The National Center for Health Research (NCHR) appreciates the opportunity to provide public  comments on the PDUFA VII Commitment letter, and to express our substantial concerns with the overall process, some of the content of the letter, and performance goals that should have  been made in the letter, but were not. 

The Prescription Drug User Fee Authorization (PDUFA) negotiation between the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) and pharmaceutical industry is unlike regulatory processes at other federal  agencies. The typical process is more transparent, and includes meaningful stakeholder  engagement and feedback from the public. The fact that the very industries being regulated by  the FDA meet behind closed doors with FDA staff to negotiate a Commitment Letter, with no  members of the public allowed to even be in the room, raises important questions about why  industry has more say in FDA policies and practices than other Stakeholders. 

The Commitment letter submitted for public comment is even more problematic than usual  because it includes numerous policy/regulatory changes that would normally be determined by  Congress, not by a negotiation between regulated industry and a federal agency. Policy/regulatory changes should be deleted from the Commitment Letter. 

The remainder of this comment will focus on performance goals. 

As a public health think tank, NCHR has supported user fees as a way to improve resources for  the FDA. However, we have repeatedly expressed concerns that the performance goals being  negotiated by the FDA and industry are focused largely on the speed of the review and approval  process, as well as industry’s access to FDA staff, with no explicit metrics to measure the safety and effectiveness of the drugs that are being reviewed and approved. We support performance  goals that enable companies to communicate with the FDA early in the drug approval  process. However, the emphasis on speed has resulted in too little attention to whether the drugs  have clinically meaningful benefits for different populations of patients that outweigh the risks to  those patients. 

One of our concerns pertaining to the performance goals is the lack of FDA oversight regarding  whether commitments to diversity that companies made to the FDA are met in the studies used  as the basis of approval or post-market studies. When there are too few older patients and racial minorities to conduct subgroup analyses, as is often the case, it has been impossible to draw  conclusions about the safety and efficacy of these drugs across the different patient populations. 

Another major issue missing from performance goals is that the emphasis on various expedited  review pathways has resulted in FDA making approval decisions based on only one pivotal  study, and often based on a surrogate endpoint or biomarker rather than a clinical outcome that is  meaningful to patients, such as overall survival. When post-market confirmatory trials are  required, they are not monitored closely by the FDA; as a result, years pass before the studies are either abandoned or completed, often with much smaller, less diverse study populations and  higher loss to follow-up than was “required.” For example, in 2021, we learned that  several cancer drugs had been found to be ineffective in confirmatory trials, many years after  they had been approved for several specific indications under an accelerated pathway. A study recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine reported that these ineffective indications cost  Medicare more than half a billion dollars.1 Another example of potential harms from a  questionable review is the recent FDA approval of Aduhelm for Alzheimer’s patients.2 This drug  was originally approved for all Alzheimer’s patients based on a questionable biomarker studied  only in patients with mild Alzheimer’s and the FDA allowed the company 9 years to complete a  confirmatory study. Fortunately, the agency responded to public outrage by changing the  approval to only mild Alzheimer’s, since those were the only patients that had been  studied. Unfortunately, the company still has 9 years to confirm that the drug is effective, and, in  the meantime, other pharmaceutical companies are racing to submit applications based on the  same flawed biomarkers. These are just two examples of why enforcement of timely and  comprehensive post-market surveillance requirements should be required as essential  performance goals. The current version of the Commitment Letter does not do so. 

User fees have been used previously to generously support the Sentinel program’s post-market  surveillance system; however, the impact of that system is not explained to the general  public. FDA should notify Congress and the public about how many drugs have been removed  from the market due to Sentinel data, the number and type of label revisions that resulted, and  how adverse events found through Sentinel did or did not differ for drugs approved under  various review pathways. The number of years that specific products were on the market before  Sentinel reported the need for label revisions or removal from the market should also be  calculated and widely reported as part of the performance goals. 

User fees should also be used to improve communication with patients and caretakers, including older adults, people with disabilities, people who are not fluent in English, and those  with limited literacy skills. Information provided by the FDA should include different formats  and videos and virtual meetings should have the option for closed-captioning and American Sign  Language translation. 

In conclusion, we believe that the Commitment Letter should delete policy/regulatory proposals  and do more to ensure the safety of patients and consumers and the scientific integrity of the  drug review process using the types of metrics we have suggested as part of the performance  goals. We appreciate the efforts of the agency to work toward those ends,  but when patients, consumers and other stakeholders are excluded from the PDUFA  negotiations, their priorities are excluded. We urge the Biden Administration to improve the  PDUFA VII Commitment Letter in the ways described in this comment. 

For more information, please contact Dr. Diana Zuckerman at dz@center4research.org. 

 1 Shahzad M, Naci H, Wagner AK. Estimated Medicare Spending on Cancer Drug Indications with a Confirmed  Lack of Clinical Benefit after US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval. JAMA Intern  Med. Published online October 18, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.5989 

2 FDA Grants Accelerated Approval for Alzheimer’s Drug, June 07, 202. 1https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press announcements/fda-grants-accelerated-approval-alzheimers-drug

Statement by Dr. Diana Zuckerman on Sintilimab at FDA Advisory Committee on Oncologic Drugs

Testimony & Briefings, , ,

February 10, 2022

I’m Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. Our center is a nonprofit think tank that scrutinizes the safety and effectiveness of medical products, and we don’t accept funding from companies that make those products.  My expertise is based on post-doc training in epidemiology and public health, and as a faculty member and researcher at Vassar, Yale, and Harvard.  I’ve also worked at HHS and the White House, and I’m on the Board of the nonprofit Alliance for a Stronger FDA, which educates Congress about the need to support the work of the FDA.

On a personal note, I am a cancer survivor, and so I understand the pressure to find new treatments. My goal today is to be as objective as I can in evaluating the evidence regarding Sintilimab.

There are many problems with the data supporting this application, but let’s start with the first mistake:

#1: The sponsor did not consult with the FDA regarding the trial’s design or conduct.  That is almost always a big mistake, and it definitely is in this case. The result is a very inadequate trial design, including a non-representative group of patients.

#2: Most important to me, the study relied on progression-free survival as the primary endpoint.  We agree with FDA scientists that other drugs in the same class have shown highly significant improvement in overall survival. What matters most to cancer patients is how long they will live and the quality of their remaining lives, not whether or not they die of the cancer they are being treated for. So what could possibly be the justification for approving a cancer drug that is not as good as those already available for the same indication?

#3: FDA is sometimes flexible about its usual requirements, especially when there is an unmet need.  We agree with the FDA scientists that this drug does not address an unmet need, since several treatments proven to improve overall survival are already available.  This drug review therefore “does not warrant regulatory flexibility.”

#4: As you know, the data are all based on patients in China.  For the FDA to consider foreign data as the sole basis for marketing approval, the data are supposed to be applicable to the U.S. population and to U.S. medical practice. We agree with the FDA that the data presented today are neither. The population studied is not at all representative of the U.S.’s diverse population.  Equally problematic, the study’s comparative control arm was based on chemotherapy alone, and that is not consistent with the U.S. standard of care. Therefore a different control group would be needed to determine the benefits and risks of Sintilimab.

FDA notes that the studies have NOT been performed by clinical investigators of recognized competence.  And that FDA has not had enough contact with the investigators to be confident of their competence.

#5: The sponsor has proposed an additional study, but their proposed study does not address the serious design issues that have been criticized today. We agree with the FDA reviewers that this additional study does “not address the concerns regarding endpoint selection.”

In conclusion, you’ve been asked to vote on whether additional clinical trials with data applicable to U.S. patients and U.S. standard of care are necessary before a final regulatory decision is made.  I am very concerned about the inadequate informed consent for patients in the study that was conducted.  I hope you will agree that yes, additional trials are needed and they need to address all the major shortcomings of the data submitted so far before the FDA decides whether to approve it.  Overall survival is the essential endpoint, at a level that is meaningful to patients. The patients studied must be representative of U.S. patients in terms of race, age, and other key variables, and the comparison group needs to have the kind of medical care that is the standard of care in the U.S.

FDA notes that they have more than 25 applications whose studies are at least predominantly based on clinical trial data from China. Each should be evaluated on its own merits, but the FDA’s decision regarding Sintilimab should not set a precedent for FDA approval decisions of medical products that are not appropriately studied to determine the risks and benefits of patients in the U.S.

Biden’s Drug Agency Nominee Returns With Deeper Industry Ties

In the News, We're In the News,

Alex Ruoff, Jeannie Baumann and Celine Castronuovo, Bloomberg Business: November 23, 2021

President Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Food and Drug Administration made millions of dollars from health and drug companies since his last stint in government, raising new questions about his ties to firms the agency oversees.

Robert Califf was paid $2.7 million by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet Inc., and sits on the boards of two pharmaceutical companies, AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals PLC. He also reported ties to 16 other research organizations and biotech companies, ethics and financial disclosure documents show.

Califf’s deep industry ties have prompted at least two Democratic senators to oppose his nomination, complicating his path to confirmation and echoing concerns that emerged when he was last nominated. While Califf previously was paid largely as a consultant for drugmakers before, in recent years he’s been hired as a top adviser and board member to major health-care companies creating innovative technologies and medicines.

[….]

Consulting, Stock Options

Califf’s reported income from the health industry skyrocketed between stints at the FDA.

Califf was a paid consultant for Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, AstraZeneca PLC, and Eli Lilly from 2009 to 2016, according to disclosures compiled by ProPublica. During this time he collected fees ranging from $2,160 to $9,000. Califf had also disclosed accepting consulting fees from drugmakers Amgen Inc., Eli Lilly & Co., and Merck & Co.

After his time leading the FDA, Califf earned $56,299 in fees from the biopharmaceutical firm Cytokinestics Inc. and unvested stock options worth as much as $5 million from Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Califf is an expert in clinical trial research and cardiovascular medicine and founded the Duke Clinical Research Institute, a large academic center that received more than half its funding from the drug industry.

This kind of expertise is almost impossible to acquire without working with or for the pharmaceutical industry, David Magnus, director Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, said. Drugmakers have historically provided the funding for most clinical trials, he said.

[….]

During his first tour at the FDA, Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Califf, said.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, said.

He may have more ties to track this time.

“It seems he would have to recuse himself from a large number of decisions,” Lisa Bero, chief scientist for the University of Colorado Center for Bioethics and Humanities, said.

Califf’s years of ties to the pharmaceutical industry don’t seem to have been “a deciding factor” in the White House’s nomination decision, Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, said in an interview with Bloomberg Law.

“Dr. Califf has these other very important, positive attributes of having been FDA commissioner, having been a high-level person at FDA even before he was commissioner, and having a track record of showing his commitment to scientific evidence,” Zuckerman said.

The plan offered by Califf to manage his financial interest appears to fairly standard and routine, New York University bioethicist Arthur Caplan said. “I don’t find it disqualifying that he has industry ties,” he said, adding that he’s breaking ties with for-profit, academia, and other think tank types of organizations. Califf “showed himself to be independent and fair” when he was last at the agency, Caplan said.

To read the entire article, click here.

The road ahead for Califf’s confirmation

In the News, News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News,

Marisa Fernandez, Axios and Yahoo News: November 15, 2021

It’s taken about 10 months for President Biden to name a nominee for the role of permanent FDA commissioner — former FDA chief Robert Califf — and it’s unlikely his confirmation will be complete before the end of 2021.

Why it matters: The agency has been without a Senate-approved commissioner for nearly a year, all while playing a central role in the response to the ongoing COVID pandemic.

The selection of the former commissioner came after the White House dropped several prior candidates, including acting commissioner Janet Woodcock, who faced strong opposition over her pharmaceutical ties, the New York Times reports.

[….]

What to watch: Califf was confirmed in 2016 by an 89-4 vote, but he’ll still face some questions over his ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin, Ed Markey and Richard Blumenthal, who voted against Califf last time, all reiterated their concern on Friday.

  • He was the founding director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, where he worked closely with drug companies and received consulting fees prior to his first stint as FDA commissioner. More recently, he’s served as a senior adviser for Verily and Google Health.
  • “The public has been asking if they can trust the FDA to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks for Alzheimer’s drugs, cancer treatments, and implanted devices,” Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a non-partisan non-profit think tank, told Axios.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

Biden Picks Robert Califf to Head the FDA for a Second Time

In the News, News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News,

Chloe Tenn, The Scientist: November 12, 2021

President Joe Biden announced today (November 12) his nomination of Robert Califf for the role of commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration. Califf previously helmed the FDA for the Obama administration in 2016, but many of his plans were left unfinished during his 10-month tenure, reports STAT. His nomination will need to be confirmed by the Senate before he can assume the position again.

While commissioner, Califf made efforts toward reforming medical digital data systems and regulating tobacco products like e-cigarettes, according to STAT. Some of his initiatives, such as creating a collaborative organization to collect and distribute medical data nationally and improving the FDA hiring system, did not take effect.

After leaving the FDA commissioner position in 2017, Califf joined Verily, a biotechnology company with the same parent company as Google. There he led efforts to streamline and modernize clinical trials and medical data collection. He was also a consultant for pharmaceutical companies like Merck, Biogen, and Genentech, reports The New York Times.

[….]

Diana Zuckerman, the president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, tells the Times that “It is surprising that the White House has seemed really tone-deaf on conflicts of interest and very close ties to the industry.”

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

Biden to Choose Robert Califf to Lead F.D.A., Despite Drug Industry Ties

In the News, News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News,

Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Sheila Kaplan, The New York Times: November 12, 2021

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Friday is expected to nominate Dr. Robert M. Califf, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, to lead the agency again, several people familiar with the planning said. The move would end nearly a year of political wrangling as the White House vetted then dropped several candidates after complaints that some were too close to the pharmaceutical industry.

In the end, White House officials might have concluded that they could not find a suitable candidate with no industry ties. Dr. Califf, 70, a respected academic and clinical trial researcher who ran the agency during the last year of the Obama administration, has long been a consultant to drug companies and ran a research center at Duke University that received some funding from the drug industry.

During his previous stint as commissioner, Dr. Califf sought to permit pharmaceutical companies to advertise off-label uses for F.D.A.-approved products, a practice that is not permitted under the strict regulations governing drug advertising. But the proposal, which many public health experts considered dangerous, was blocked by others in the Obama administration, according to a person familiar with it.

A cardiologist who has seen the harmful effects of smoking on the heart, Dr. Califf has been a forceful advocate for tobacco control; before he was the F.D.A. commissioner, he was the agency’s deputy commissioner for medical products and tobacco. In an appearance with other former commissioners this year, he said, “I have never seen more capable or nastier lawyers than what I experienced in trying to deal with the tobacco industry.”

He added, “It was awesome and quite frightening for public health.”

For the past two years, after stepping down as the vice chancellor for clinical and translational health at Duke University, Dr. Califf has worked as senior adviser to Verily Life Sciences, a health technology firm, and its sister company Google Health. He has encouraged Verily to focus on addiction, cardiovascular health and management of chronic diseases, according to a person at the company who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

[….]

Dr. Califf’s relationships with pharmaceutical companies as a clinical trials researcher proved to be a liability during his Senate confirmation process in 2016. Mr. Manchin blasted him for “big pharma ties” and voted against him.

Dr. Califf was confirmed for the job in a vote of 89 to 4; in addition to Mr. Manchin, Senators Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts; Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut; and Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, voted against him. But other Republicans, led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, then the majority leader, voted in favor.

That support may be one reason Mr. Biden picked Mr. Califf: His selection drew mixed reaction.

“It is surprising that the White House has seemed really tone-deaf on conflicts of interest and very close ties to the industry,” said Diana Zuckerman, the president of the National Center for Health Research, a nonprofit think tank.

But others said they believed that Dr. Califf’s industry experience should not bar him from the job, noting that he has disclosed his ties in publishing the results of clinical trials.

“The truth of the matter is industry develops drugs — you have to work with industry. The issue is disclosure in publication,” said Ellen V. Sigal, the founder and chairwoman of the nonprofit Friends of Cancer Research, which accepts industry funding. “Rob has done many, many clinical trials with industry, but he has not been a pawn of industry. He’s completely committed to transparency, integrity and science.”

[….]

But Dr. [Aaron] Kesselheim objected to Dr. Califf’s efforts, when he was the commissioner, to allow drug companies to advertise off-label uses for their products, noting that patients can be endangered by drugs that are prescribed for uses that the F.D.A. has not approved. “That to me is a red flag,” Dr. Kesselheim said. “Hopefully, he’s moved past that as an idea, because it would be a terrible idea.”

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

Biden picks ex-FDA chief Robert Califf to again lead agency

In the News, News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News,

Matthew Perrone and Zeke Miller, AP News: November 12, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden on Friday is tapping Dr. Robert Califf, a former Food and Drug Administration commissioner, to again lead the powerful regulatory agency, according to a person familiar with the decision.

Califf’s nomination comes after months of the concern that the agency near the center of the government’s COVID-19 response has lacked a permanent leader. More than a half-dozen names were floated for the job before the White House settled on Califf.

Biden is to make the formal announcement later Friday, said the person familiar, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preview the announcement.

A cardiologist and clinical trial specialist, Califf, 70, served as FDA commissioner for the last 11 months of President Barack Obama’s second term. Before that, he spent one year as the agency’s No. 2 official after more than 35 years as a prominent researcher at Duke University, where he helped design studies for many of the world’s biggest drugmakers.

Since leaving the government, he has worked as a policy adviser to tech giant Google, in addition to his ongoing academic work at Duke.

[….]

Califf arrived at the FDA in 2015 determined to modernize how the agency reviewed drug and device study data. But his brief time as commissioner was dominated by unrelated pharmaceutical controversies, including the surging epidemic of opioid addiction and overdoses.

He was among the first FDA officials to publicly acknowledge missteps in the agency’s oversight of painkillers like OxyContin, which is widely blamed for sparking the ongoing opioid epidemic, now driven by heroin and fentanyl.

“If addiction to opioids and misuse of opioids is an enemy then we at the FDA — like every other part of society — underestimated the tenacity of the enemy,” Califf told The Associated Press in a 2016 interview. “So we’ve got to adjust.”

Califf’s extensive work with the drug industry drew scrutiny during his Senate confirmation hearing, though he was ultimately confirmed by an overwhelming margin. Given the pressing need for a permanent commissioner, he is expected to again win bipartisan confirmation. He also has the backing of the powerful pharmaceutical and medical device lobbying groups in Washington.

[….]

FDA watchers said Califf had several key advantages over other candidates vetted for the job, several of whom would have faced more scrutiny in the Senate.

“He knows how the FDA works, and he avoided making any outrageous decisions as commissioner,” said Diana Zuckerman of the non-profit National Center for Health Research. “Those are essential if the FDA is going to regain the public trust.”

His first tasks would include easing burnout and boosting morale among the FDA’s 18,000 employees. The agency’s medical reviewers have been straining for months under a crushing coronavirus pandemic workload, while the agency’s reputation for scientific independence has been battered by a string of public controversies.

Two congressional committees are investigating the agency’s June approval of the much-debated Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm against the recommendation of its outside experts, three of whom resigned over the decision. Then in September, two top FDA vaccine regulators announced they would leave the agency after disagreeing with the Biden administration plan to make COVID-19 vaccines boosters widely available.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.

Biden expected to tap Califf as FDA commissioner

In the News, News Stories & Editorials, We're In the News, ,

Emily Kopp, Roll Call: November 12, 2021

President Joe Biden is expected to tap Robert Califf to again serve as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration.

Califf, who previously helmed the FDA in the final year of the Obama administration, is seen as a status quo choice.

Independent experts say Califf has decades of experience in the development and conduct of clinical trials. That resume has brought Califf in frequent contact with both the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry he would be charged with regulating.

[….]

Califf had such strong bipartisan support that when Trump took office in early 2017, many pharmaceutical and medical device industry officials expressed hope he would continue on as the FDA’s leader.

“My feeling about Califf is that he’s a political compromise. His nomination shows the power of pharma. But despite his close ties to pharma, he has always talked about the importance of solid scientific evidence.” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, a think tank in Washington, D.C. “I have some confidence that Dr. Califf is not someone who likes controversy. That is different than Dr. Woodcock who doesn’t seem to mind controversy at all. I’m hopeful he will really focus on the science in a way that has been missing lately at FDA.”

Califf’s background

Califf is a longtime cardiologist and a professor in the school of medicine at Duke University. Califf also served as founding director of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, a partnership between the university and pharmaceutical companies with the goal of innovating clinical trial design. He led it for a decade. The research institute receives about half of its funding from the pharmaceutical industry and half from the government, according to a 2020 report. He founded the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, a collaboration between the FDA and Duke on improving the speed and reducing the cost of clinical trials, which collaborates with pharmaceutical companies.

Califf is also an executive at Verily Life Sciences, formerly Google Life Sciences, an Alphabet Inc. company.

[….]

But Califf has in several public statements voiced support for more patient input at the FDA.

Critics say this advocacy is often financed by the pharmaceutical industry, and the FDA often does not distinguish between authentic advocacy and these conflicts of interest.

Califf has also called for other changes to clinical trials supported by the pharmaceutical company, including greater reliance on real-world evidence pulled from electronic health records outside of a clinical trial and on biomarkers, biological signals a drug is working before it shows a clinical benefit.

“Of course, the devil’s always in the details. It’s fine to be supportive, for example, of biomarkers as a way to get information about potential benefits but it needs to be backed up by solid science,” said Zuckerman.

At the FDA, Califf would likely have to respond to an ongoing investigation by the Health and Human Services inspector general into the approval of the Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab. It was approved through FDA’s accelerated approval pathway based on the difference it made with a controversial biomarker, amyloid plaques.

[….]

To read the entire article, click here.