FDA

Xenotransplantation: Ethics and Public Policy Need To Catch up to the Science

March 5, 2022
Bioethics, Biotechnology, Discrimination, Ethics, FDA, Health, Medical Devices, New Technology, Personalized Medicine

Claire Colby, MJLST Staffer

In early January, surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center made history by successfully transplanting a genetically altered pig heart to a human recipient, David Bennett. The achievement represents a major milestone in transplantation. The demand for transplantable organs far outpaces the supply, and xenotransplantation–the implantation of non-human tissue into human recipients–could help bridge this gap. In the U.S. alone, more than 106,000 people are on the waiting list for transplants. Legal and ethical questions remain open about the appropriateness of implementing xenotransplants on a large scale.

The FDA approved the January transplant through an emergency authorization compassionate use pathway because Bennett likely would have died without this intervention. Larger clinical trials will be needed to generate enough data to show that xenotransplants are safe and effective. The FDA will require these trials to show xenotransplantations are non-inferior to human organ transplants. IRB requirements bar interventions where risk outweighs benefits for patients, but accurately predicting and measuring risk is difficult.

If xenotransplantation becomes standard clinical practice, animal rights proponents may balk at the idea of raising pigs for organs. Far before that point, pre-clinical trials will make heavy use of animal models. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) which oversee animal research in universities and medical entities apply a “much lower ethical standard” for animals than human research subjects. Bioethicists apply a “3R” framework for animal subjects research that stresses replacing animal models, reducing animal testing, and refining their use. Because of the inherent nature of xenotransplantation, applying this framework may be near impossible. Ongoing discussions are needed with relevant stakeholders.

If both human and animal organs are approved for widespread transplant, but human organs prove superior, new allocation policies are needed to determine who gets what. Organ allocation policy is currently dictated by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). As it stands, organ transplantation shows inequality across racial groups and financial status. New allocation policies for organs must not reinforce or worsen these disparities.

Like all medical interventions, patients must be able to provide informed consent for xenotransplantation. The recipient of the altered pig heart had previously been deemed ineligible for a human heart transplant because his heart failure was poorly managed. Reserving experimental interventions, like xenotransplantations, for the sickest patients raises serious ethical concerns. Are these desperate patients truly able to give meaningful consent? If xenotransplantation becomes a common practice, the traditional model of institutional review boards may need updating. Currently, individual institutions maintain their own IRBs. Xenotransplantation of altered animal organs may involve several sites: procurement of the organ, genetic editing, and transplantation may all take place in different locations. A central IRB for xenotransplantation could standardize and streamline this process.

In all, xenotransplantation represents an exciting new frontier in transplant medicine. Responsibly implementing this innovation will require foresight and parallel innovation in ethics and public policy.

Relieving a Pain Management Crisis: How Medical Cannabis May Help the Prescription Opioid Epidemic

November 13, 2021
Drug Policy, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Uncategorized

David C. Edholm, MJLST Staffer

“The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human . . . drugs.” To no surprise, near the top of the FDA’s list of current priorities is ameliorating the prescription opioid epidemic. More than 14,000 deaths in 2019 are attributed to prescription opioid overdoses. (See fig. 4 of hyperlink). Celebrity opioid overdoses have raised public awareness of the crisis, however, hundreds of millions of opioid prescriptions are written each year to treat “moderate-to-severe” pain. The epidemic continues today, begging the question of whether any reasonable alternatives to prescription opioids exist, perhaps medical cannabis.

California became the first state to legalize medical cannabis through a ballot initiative in 1996; since then, 35 states and four territories followed. Although the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA have expressed skepticism about safety and efficacy due to a lack of quality research, legalization in a recreational capacity is becoming more popularized. Recent systematic studies on high-potency cannabis products have shown a cause for concern, however, studies on substituting medical cannabis for prescription opioids remain inconclusive, leaving the door open to this future possibility.

In order for medical cannabis to legitimately contend with prescription opioids, quality safety and efficacy data are required. But the public stands by as FDA has yet to approve a medical use and “marihuana” remains a Schedule I controlled substance. 18 U.S.C. § 812(1) (2018). Recent federal efforts push for decriminalization, but historically the federal government has adopted a “hands off” approach, giving states choice on cannabis regulation. There is coast-to-coast differentiation on cannabis legalization with most states permitting medical use and a growing number permitting recreational use, but due to its current state of being under-researched, it is substantially less controversial to leave the political choice for legalization to the states as long as safety and efficacy are opaque.

The benefit of state choice is articulated through efforts from states like California and Minnesota that aid the national effort to clarify safety and efficacy in legitimate ways. California, for example, allows medical and recreational use, as a result providing a vast data cohort. The state senate bill reads, “[i]t is the intent of the legislature that the state commission objective scientific research by . . . the University of California, regarding the safety and efficacy of administering cannabis as part of medical treatment.” Additionally, Minnesota, which permits medical use and submitted a bill for recreational approval now pending in the senate, created a medical cannabis patient registry that accumulates data, generates reports, and submits the reports to legislature and prominent medical journals that are available to the public. These states are among others providing similar efforts.

Medical cannabis may be an alternative for prescription opioids, yet there remain several questions about safety and efficacy that must be answered in order for the FDA to move on any milestone cannabis regulation. It seems that severe risks posed by cannabis are extremely rare, and are not a public health threat requiring immediate attention. Prescription opioids remain standard treatment post-operation or post-physical trauma and are usually prescribed for short-term use, but 20% of post-op patients still use opioids three months after surgery, despite an increased risk of addiction after only a few days of use. It seems the opioid epidemic is here to stay as long as prescribing practices remain the same, at least until an effective alternative arises. Maybe cannabis will be a solution. It depends on the data.

You Wouldn’t 3D Print Tylenol, Would You?

October 12, 2021
3-D Printing, Administrative Law, Bioethics, Biotechnology, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Health, Healthcare, Healthcare Reform, Medical Devices, Personalized Medicine, Pharmaceuticals, Uncategorized

By Mason Medeiros, MJLST Staffer

3D printing has the potential to change the medical field. As improvements are made to 3D printing systems and new uses are allocated, medical device manufacturers are using them to improve products and better provide for consumers. This is commonly seen through consumer use of 3D-printed prosthetic limbs and orthopedic implants. Many researchers are also using 3D printing technology to generate organs for transplant surgeries. By utilizing the technology, manufacturers can lower costs while making products tailored to the needs of the consumer. This concept can also be applied to the creation of drugs. By utilizing 3D printing, drug manufacturers and hospitals can generate medication that is tailored to the individual metabolic needs of the consumer, making the medicine safer and more effective. This potential, however, is limited by FDA regulations.

3D-printed drugs have the potential to make pill and tablet-based drugs safer and more effective for consumers. Currently, when a person picks up their prescription the drug comes in a set dose (for example, Tylenol tablets commonly come in doses of 325 or 500 mg per tablet). Because the pills come in these doses, it limits the amount that can be taken to multiples of these numbers. While this will create a safe and effective response in most people, what if your drug metabolism requires a different dose to create maximum effectiveness?

Drug metabolism is the process where drugs are chemically transformed into a substance that is easier to excrete from the body. This process primarily happens in the kidney and is influenced by various factors such as genetics, age, concurrent medications, and certain health conditions. The rate of drug metabolism can have a major impact on the safety and efficacy of drugs. If drugs are metabolized too slowly it can increase the risk of side effects, but if they are metabolized too quickly the drug will not be as effective. 3D printing the drugs can help minimize these problems by printing drugs with doses that match an individual’s metabolic needs, or by printing drugs in structures that affect the speed that the tablet dissolves. These individualized tablets could be printed at the pharmacy and provided straight to the consumer. However, doing so will force pharmacies and drug companies to deal with additional regulatory hurdles.

Pharmacies that 3D print drugs will be forced to comply with Current Good Manufacturing Procedures (CGMPs) as determined by the FDA. See 21 C.F.R. § 211 (2020). CGMPs are designed to ensure that drugs are manufactured safely to protect the health of consumers. Each pharmacy will need to ensure that the printers’ design conforms to the CGMPs, periodically test samples of the drugs for safety and efficacy, and conform to various other regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 211.65, 211.110 (2020). These additional safety precautions will place a larger strain on pharmacies and potentially harm the other services that they provide.

Additionally, the original drug developers will be financially burdened. When pharmacies 3D print the medication, they will become a new manufacturing location. Additionally, utilizing 3D printing technology will lead to a change in the manufacturing process. These changes will require the original drug developer to update their New Drug Application (NDA) that declared the product as safe and effective for use. Updating the NDA will be a costly process that will further be complicated by the vast number of new manufacturing locations that will be present. Because each pharmacy that decides to 3D print the medicine on-site will be a manufacturer, and because it is unlikely that all pharmacies will adopt 3D printing at the same time, drug developers will constantly need to update their NDA to ensure compliance with FDA regulations. Although these regulatory hurdles seem daunting, the FDA can take steps to mitigate the work needed by the pharmacies and manufacturers.

The FDA should implement a regulatory exception for pharmacies that 3D print drugs. The exemption should allow pharmacies to avoid some CGMPs for manufacturing and allow pharmacies to proceed without being registered as a manufacturer for each drug they are printing. One possibility is to categorize 3D-printed drugs as a type of compounded drug. This will allow pharmacies that 3D print drugs to act under section 503A of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. Under this section, the pharmacies would not need to comply with CGMPs or premarket approval requirements. The pharmacies, however, will need to comply with the section 503A requirements such as having the printing be performed by a licensed pharmacist in a state-licensed pharmacy or by a licensed physician, limiting the interstate distribution of the drugs to 5%, only printing from bulk drugs manufactured by FDA licensed establishments and only printing drugs “based on the receipt of a valid prescription for an individualized patient”. Although this solution limits the situations where 3D prints drugs can be made, it will allow the pharmacies to avoid the additional time and cost that would otherwise be required while helping ensure the safety of the drugs.

This solution would be beneficial for the pharmacies wishing to 3D print drugs, but it comes with some drawbacks. One of the main drawbacks is that there is no adverse event reporting requirement under section 503A. This will likely make it harder to hold pharmacies accountable for dangerous mistakes. Another issue is that pharmacies registered as an outsourcing facility under section 503B of the FD&C Act will not be able to avoid conforming to CGMPs unless they withdraw their registration. This issue, however, could be solved by an additional exemption from CGMPs for 3D-printed drugs. Even with these drawbacks, including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs proposes a relatively simple way to ease the burden on pharmacies that wish to utilize this new technology.

3D printing drugs has the opportunity to change the medical drug industry. The 3D-printed drugs can be specialized for the individual needs of the patient, making them safer and more effective for each person. For this to occur, however, the FDA needs to create an exemption for these pharmacies by including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs.

Zoinks! Can the FTC Unmask Advertisements Disguised by Social Media Influencers?

February 25, 2020
FDA, Regulatory, Social Media

Jennifer Satterfield, MJLST Staffer

Social media sites like Instagram and YouTube are filled with people known as “influencers.” Influencers are people with a following on social media that use their online fame to promote products and services of a brand. But, with all that power comes great responsibility, and influencers, as a whole, are not being responsible. One huge example of irresponsible influencer activity is the epic failure and fraudulent music festival known as Fyre Festival. Although Fyre Festival promised a luxury, VIP experience on a remote Bahamian island, it was a true nightmare where “attendees were stranded with half-built huts to sleep in and cold cheese sandwiches to eat.” The most prominent legal action was against Fyre’s founders and organizers, Billy McFarland and Ja Rule, including a six-year criminal sentence for wire fraud against McFarland. Nonetheless, a class action lawsuit also targeted the influencers. According to the lawsuit, the influencers did not comply with Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) guidelines and disclose they were being paid to advertise the festival. Instead, “influencers gave the impression that the guest list was full of the Social Elite and other celebrities.” Yet, the blowback against influencers since the Fyre Festival fiasco appears to be minimal.

According to a Mediakix report, “[i]n one year, a top celebrity will post an average of 58 sponsored posts and only 3 may be FTC compliant.” The endorsement guidelines specify that if there is a “material connection” between the influencer and the seller of an advertised product, this connection must be fully disclosed. The FTC even created a nifty guide for influencers to ensure compliance. While disclosure is a small burden and there are several resources informing influencers of their duty to disclose, these guidelines are still largely ignored.

Evens so, the FTC has sent several warning letters to individual influencers over the years, which indicates it is monitoring top influencers’ posts. However, a mere letter is not doing much to stop the ongoing, flippant, and ignorant disregard toward the FTC guidelines. Besides the letters, the FTC rarely takes action against individual influencers. Instead, if the FTC goes after a bad actor, “it’s usually a brand that[] [has] failed to issue firm disclosure guidelines to paid influencers.” Consequently, even though it appears as if the FTC is cracking down on influencers, it is really only going after the companies. Without actual penalties, it is no wonder most influencers are either unaware of the FTC guidelines or continue to blatantly ignore them.

Considering this problem, there is a question of what the FTC can really do about it. One solution is for the FTC to dig in and actually enforce its guidelines against influencers like it did in 2017 with CSGO Lotto and two individual influencers, Trevor Martin and Thomas Cassell. CSGO Lotto was a website in which users could gamble virtual items called “skins” from the game Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. According to the FTC’s complaint, Martin and Thomas endorsed CSGO Lotto but failed to disclose they were both the owners and officers of the company. CSGO Lotto also paid other influencers to promote the website. The complaint notes that numerous YouTube videos by these influencers either failed to include a sponsorship disclosure in the videos or inconspicuously placed such disclosures “below the fold” in the description box. While the CSGO Lotto action was a huge scandal in the video game industry, it was not widely publicized to the general population. Moreover, Martin and Cassell got away with a mere slap on the wrist—“[t]he [FTC] order settling the charges requires Martin and Cassell to clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connections with an endorser or between an endorser and any promoted product or service.” Thus, it was not enough to compel other influencers into compliance. Instead, if the FTC started enforcement actions against big-name influencers, other influencers may also fear retribution and comply.

On the other hand, the FTC could continue its enforcement against the companies themselves, but this time with more teeth. Currently, the FTC is preparing to take further steps to ensure consumer protection in the world of social media influencers. Recently, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra acknowledged in a public statement that “it is not clear whether our actions are deterring misconduct in the marketplace, due to the limited sanctions we have pursued.” Although Chopra is not interested in pursuing small influencers, but rather the advertisers that pay them, it is possible that enforcement against the companies will cause influencers to comply as well.

Accordingly, Chopra’s next steps include: (1) “[d]eveloping requirements for technology platforms (e.g. Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok) that facilitate and either directly or indirectly profit from influencer marketing;” (2) “[c]odifying elements of the existing endorsement guides into formal rules so that violators can be liable for civil penalties under Section 5(m)(1)(A) and liable for damages under Section 19; 7;” and (3) “[s]pecifying the requirements that companies must adhere to in their contractual arrangements with influencers, including through sample terms that companies can include in contracts.” By pushing some of the enforcement duties onto social media platforms themselves, the FTC gains more monitoring and enforcement capabilities. Furthermore, codifying the guidelines into formal rules gives the FTC teeth to impose civil penalties and creates tangible consequences for those who previously ignored the guidelines. Finally, by actually requiring companies to adhere to these rules via their contract with influencers, influencers will be compelled to follow the guidelines as well. Therefore, under these next steps, paid advertising disclosures on social media can become commonplace. But only time will really tell if the FTC will achieve these steps.

Will the Vaping Industry Go Up in Smoke?

October 2, 2019
Administrative Law, FDA, Health, Uncategorized

Stephen Wood, MJLST Staffer

It’s no secret that vaping has become increasingly popular. The number of users has increased from 7 million in 2011 to 41 million as of 2018. The total market is now worth an estimated $19.3 billion. Less clear is the future of industry regulation in light of the recent respiratory illnesses linked to vaping. On September 24, 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that vaping was attributed to 805 illnesses and 12 deaths. Pressure is building on the industry’s major players. In the last week, we have seen the cancellation of a merger between two of the largest tobacco companies, Altria and Philip Morris, and the release of the CEO of Juul, Kevin Burns.

However, the respiratory illnesses associated with vaping haven’t been linked to a specific product, and it is unclear what the long-term effects of vaping are. Because of this uncertainty, some states have implemented blanket restrictions on the sale of vaping products, President Trump has proposed new regulations, and the CDC has issued warnings regarding their safety. This is blindsiding the industry, which has been free from regulation by the FDA until recently.

Vaping devices, also known as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), became subject to the FDA’s regulatory scheme for all tobacco products on August 8, 2016. The Deeming Rule placed ENDS in the same category of products as cigarettes and other traditional tobacco products, which have been regulated under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act since 2009. For this reason, the minimum age for purchasing ENDS is 18 years old, and the marketing, manufacturing, and distribution of ENDS is heavily regulated.

Juul, in particular, has come under fire for its marketing strategies. Among other claims, many lawsuits allege that the company specifically targeted minors through its use of social media and distribution of enticing flavors. These practices have also been the focal point of the recent surge of state regulations, which “are filling what many see as a regulatory void caused by federal inaction.” For example, in Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer implemented an emergency ban, limiting the sale of vaping products to those which are tobacco flavored. New York did the same but exempted menthol from the ban. Massachusetts, notably, implemented a four-month emergency ban on all products. President Trump’s proposed ban, on the other hand, would be limited to flavored products.

If President Trump’s proposal is adopted, the industry would see an estimated 80% loss in sales. It will be interesting to see what the regulatory landscape looks like once the smoke clears.

Treating Depression with Ketamine? How The Investment Was Made

March 15, 2019
Biotechnology, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Health

Hunter Moss, MJLST Staffer

Depression is a serious mental disorder that afflicts millions of Americans each year. One in three of these individuals struggles to find a treatment method that alleviates their condition, and are aptly said to suffer from treatment-resistant depression. In the most severe cases, treating depression can be a life or death decision—depression is the leading cause of over 41,000 suicides every year. For those dealing with depression, every day is a struggle to persevere and try to regain a sense of normalcy.

A new therapy for treatment-resistant depression was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) earlier this week, one that could help those that have been unable to find relief elsewhere. The unexpected source of the therapy is esketamine. If the name of this drug sounds familiar, it is because the name is based on, and molecularly similar to, the street drug named ketamine. While originally synthesized in the 1960’s as an anesthetic and first used widely in the Vietnam War, ketamine is now known as a party drug, providing the user with mild hallucinations and a sense of euphoria. Due to its dangerous side-effects and potential for abuse, ketamine was placed on the Schedule III of the United States Controlled Substance Act in August of 1999.

In the early 1990’s, researchers at Yale University first recognized the potential for ketamine to treat the symptoms of depression. Since then, scientists sought to confirm the viability of ketamine as a treatment option for individuals who did not experience relief from other treatment methods. A 2012 study out of Baylor College of Medicine proved just that: 85% of patients with severe depression reported the treatment to be effective. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which are most commonly prescribed to treat depression and can take weeks to build in a patient’s system before becoming effective, ketamine can provide nearly immediate relief with its full effect being felt in as little as two days.

With the science firmly in place, the next hurdle advocates of ketamine faced was of perception—in the eyes of the FDA and the public alike. Radical clinics began to emerge across the country to provide patients suffering from treatment-resistant depression with a safe, heavily-monitored environment to undergo care. Because ketamine had yet to be recognized as a potential aid for depression by the FDA, clinic physicians would often have to prescribe the drug under the guise of using it as an anesthetic. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to a new treatment for a severe mental disorder created some inevitable quandaries for both doctors and patients, who would be unable to receive insurance coverage for a non-FDA approved treatment program.

While the medical community was well aware of the healing potential of ketamine, pharmaceutical companies were reluctant to make the investment. The average price-tag of a clinical trial for the FDA is $19m. There is certainly a market for the drug with countless Americans suffering from depression. The issue holding pharmaceutical companies back is related to patent law. In order to receive a patent, the proposed invention must be novel—and considering that ketamine has been around for nearly sixty years, that would be an impossible claim to make. Without patent protection, the multi-million dollar investment is bad economics for big pharma, even if the trials could provide relief for millions of Americans.

So why did Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the developer of a treatment method for depression based on ketamine, make the investment and receive FDA approval for its new drug Sprovato? The answer is because Sprovato is esketamine, a sufficiently different molecule from ketamine to be patentable. Certain molecules can be left-handed and have right-handed doppelgangers. While it is beyond the scope of this blog piece (and the ability of its author) to explain the difference between the two, esketamine is the left-handed version of ketamine’s right hand. The deviation between the molecules is a significant enough difference to pass the novelty requirement necessitated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While there is some debate as to whether esketamine is as effective as its counterpart, esketamine passed the FDA’s clinical trials and, for the most part, has been received as a viable alternative to ketamine treatment. This development could help legitimize the countless ketamine clinics that have emerged across the United States over the last few years, yielding a promising new alternative for those struggling with severe depression. At the same time, the story of ketamine raises questions about the roles of several actors in the health care system, specifically pharmaceutical companies, the FDA and the USPTO, in delaying the introduction of life saving medication in order to adhere their respective financial and regulatory requirements.

Health Supplements: The “Wild West” of FDA Regulations

February 10, 2019
Administrative Law, FDA, Food and Drug Law

Gabe Branco, MJLST Staffer

At some point, we all have taken a multivitamin and/or some type of dietary supplement. They are hard to miss in most stores such as Target or Wal-Mart. The bright colored packaging and unfulfilling promises of “losing weight quickly” without dieting or “building muscle” without working out catches everybody’s attention. Most people assume that these products, ironically labeled “health” or “dietary” supplements, must be safe to ingest due to placing them in the same category as a “drug,” or because they deem the supplement to be “natural.” However, the reason people are mistaken is because the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) chooses to differentiate “health” products from “drugs.”

Under the FDA’s current regulatory scheme, “health” supplements are treated more like special foods than drugs. Drugs are considered unsafe until proven safe through clinical trials. These trials must be done on all drugs, even those that are sold without a required prescription. The trials must show that the drug is both safe and effective for the specified use. Once the drug is approved, manufacturers are subject to carefully monitored conditions and packaging requirements. The packaging requirement includes conditions the drug has been proven to treat, known side effects, contraindications, and unsafe interactions with other drugs. After the drug has been manufactured and released to the public for consumption, the FDA follows up on any adverse effects consumers and their doctors report, along with any adverse effects reported by the manufacturer.

“Dietary” supplements, on the other hand, are seen as safe until proven unsafe, a stark contrast to their drug counterpart. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) defines “dietary” supplements as a category of food. As such, “dietary” supplements do not undergo the rigorous pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing approval and monitoring process that drugs do. DSHEA prohibits supplements from containing anything that may have “a significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury” when the supplement is used as directed on the label, or with regular use if there are no directions. While the regulation makes clear these supplements should not significantly or unreasonably expose the public to increased risk of harm, DSHEA fails to enforce the regulation with any preventative measures.

DSHEA effectively allows manufacturers to print any statement they wish on “dietary” supplement labels, so long as it is followed by the phrase “This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.” This practice is troublesome because the statement may suggest or claim outright that the “dietary” supplement treats symptoms or results in an outlandish outcome if taken. Even with the FDA warning, consumers would have little to no reason to assume that supplements placed on shelves everywhere could contain none of the listed ingredients or unknown ingredients that can cause adverse health effects.

The FDA has the authority to stop any production of “dietary” supplement if it is shown there is an increased risk of harm to the public. However, this only occurs after the release of the supplement and subsequent adverse effects impact consumers. Due to the lack of pre-manufacturing testing requirements, many “dietary” supplements contain germs, pesticides, or toxic heavy metals that may adversely impact consumers. In addition, many “dietary” supplements either do not contain what is listed on the label, contain more or less of what is listed on the label, or even contain ingredients not listed on the label. This issue could also stem from parties other than the manufacturers and sellers. Without any regulations pre-manufacturing, many suppliers of ingredients may mix or substitute the ingredients sold to manufacturers with less expensive or tainted filler ingredients.

These issues become problematic when an ingredient the FDA would deem a “drug” finds its way into a “dietary supplement.” Many male enhancers or muscle building “dietary” supplements have been found to contain substances much like Viagra or Cialis, which are regulated as “drugs.” In addition, certain weight loss supplements have been found to contain sibutraimine, which has been banned in the United States. All of these supplements were recalled by the FDA in a reactionary manner. However, in most instances a “dietary” supplement may contain a drug that has little to no known effects. Having little to no known effects makes it more difficult to detect if a “dietary” supplement indeed contains a drug, and if it then must undergo the more rigorous FDA drug requirements. By providing manufacturers and sellers a pathway to produce categorical “drugs” and distribute them to the public without undergoing the rigorous FDA drug testing processes, DSHEA potentially does more deregulation than regulation.

FDA regulations concerning “dietary” supplements should be as stringent as regulations governing drugs. The simplest solution would be to implement the same pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing procedures that are required of “drug” manufacturers into the “dietary” supplement realm. Doing so would fulfill DSHEA’s requirement that the “dietary” supplements do not cause a significant or unreasonable increase in risk of injury or illness. Additionally, this would allow the FDA to regulate “drugs” to its fullest potential.

FDA’s Nutrition Innovation Strategy: The Right to Remain Silent on Added Sugars

November 5, 2018
Administrative Law, FDA, Food and Agriculture

Christina Petsoulis, MJLST Staffer

As of 2017, obesity rates in the United States reached 38.9%. It is without a doubt that poor diet is a major contributing factor to obesity prevalence. More specifically, diets consisting of convenience foods containing high amounts of added sugar serve as significant exposures leading to obesity and other comorbidities. A recent study reported that sugar was added to 66% of packaged foods.

While the sugar industry is quick to blame lack of physical activity for America’s obesity rates, research is clear that diets high in refined sugar increase the risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, fatty liver disease, cognitive decline and some cancers.

Though the linkages between food and obesity have been well established in scientific literature for some time, it is not until now that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has seriously recognized the importance of diet quality in chronic disease prevention.

On March 29, 2018, FDA commissioner, Dr. Scott Gotlieb, announced the Nutrition Innovation Strategy (NIS). Some of the key elements highlighted in the NIS include: modernizing claims, modernizing ingredient labels, modernizing standards of identity, implementing the nutrition facts label and menu labeling, and reducing sodium. The agency stated that it would be “committed to finding new ways to reduce the burden of chronic disease through improved nutrition.”

Gotlieb’s press release introducing the initiative seems to take a different perspective despite the agency’s intended goal.

In Gotlieb’s statement, he started by explaining the critical importance of a healthy diet in human health. He first introduced the importance of informed consumer choice as it relates to transparent labeling, then dove into the issue of “standards of identity.” Using milk as a key example, he explained that plant-based alternatives to cow’s milk, such as soy and almond-based beverages, labeled as “milk” create major public health concerns, including cases of kwashiorkor (protein deficiency disorder), and rickets (vitamin D deficiency disorder). He then went on to cite a case where a child was diagnosed with rickets as a result of parents assuming a soy-based beverage they fed their child contained the same nutritional qualities as cow’s milk. While the issue of standards of identity is relevant to public health nutrition in the context of protein deficiency and other forms of malnutrition, these issues have little relevance to obesity, or any other chronic disease for that matter.

It is surprising to see that Gotlieb’s press release does not highlight any of the important factors contributing to obesity in light of the initiative’s supposed goals. The worry, of course, is that the FDA is tip-toeing around food-industry players and, namely, the sugar industry in efforts to avoid conflict. The sugar industry is known for its aggressive efforts to shift blame for obesity on poor diet to lack of physical activity and poor consumer choice. For example, it was recently discovered that the sugar industry paid Harvard scientists to produce favorable results in their nutrition research on sugar’s role in heart disease.

While FDA has addressed the issue of sugar content through “added sugars” labeling requirements finalized in May 2016, little has been done to address sugar content in packaged foods. Serious efforts need to be taken to reduce sugar content in foods on the market to address the obesity epidemic

Health in the Fast Lane: FDA’s Effort to Streamline Digital Health Technology Approval

October 7, 2017
FDA, Health, Regulatory, Uncategorized

Alex Eschenroeder, MJLST Staffer

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is testing out a fast-track approval program to see if it can accommodate the pace of innovation in the technology industry and encourage more ventures into the digital health technology space. Dr. Scott Gottlieb M.D., Commissioner of the FDA, announced the fast-track pilot program—officially named the “Pre-Cert for Software Pilot Program” (Program)—on July 27, 2017. Last week, the FDA announced the names of the nine companies it selected out of more than 100 applicants to participate in the Program. Companies that made it onto the participant list include tech giants such as Apple and Samsung, as well as Verily Life Sciences—a subsidiary of Alphabet, Inc. The FDA also listed smaller startups, indicating that it intends to learn from entities at various stages of development.

The FDA idea that attracted applicants from across the technology industry to the Program is roughly analogous to the TSA Pre-Check Program. With TSA Pre-Check certification, travelers at airports get exclusive access to less intensive pre-boarding security procedures because they submitted to an official background check (among other requirements) well before their trip. Here, the FDA Program completes extensive vetting of participating technology companies well before they bring a specific digital health technology product to market. As Dr. Gottlieb explained in the July Program announcement, “Our new, voluntary pilot program will enable us to develop a tailored approach toward this technology by looking first at the . . . developer, rather than primarily at the product (as we currently do for traditional medical products).” If the FDA determines through its review that a company meets necessary quality standards, it can pre-certify the company. A pre-certified company would then need to submit less information to the FDA “than is currently required before marketing a new digital health tool.” The FDA even proposed the possibility of a pre-certified company skipping pre-market review for certain products, as long as the company immediately started collecting post-market data for FDA to confirm safety and effectiveness.

While “digital health technology” does not have a simple definition, a recently announced Apple initiative illustrates what the term can mean and how the FDA Program could encourage its innovation. Specifically, Apple recently announced plans to undertake a Heart Study in collaboration with Stanford Medicine. Through this study, researchers will use “data from Apple Watch to identify irregular heart rhythms, including those from potentially serious heart conditions like atrial fibrillation.” Positive research results could encourage Apple, which “wants the Watch to be able to detect common heart conditions such as atrial fibrillation”, to move further into FDA regulated territory. Indeed, Apple has been working with the FDA, aside from the Program, to organize the Heart Study. This is a critical development, as Apple has intentionally limited Watch sensors to “fitness trackers and heart rate monitors” to avoid FDA regulation to date. If Apple receives pre-certification through the Program, it could issue updates to a sophisticated heart monitoring app or issue an entirely different diagnostic app with little or no FDA pre-market review. This dynamic would encourage Apple, and companies like it, to innovate in digital health technology and create increasingly sophisticated tools to protect consumer health.

Snortable Chocolate Fails the Smell Test, But What Exactly Is It?

July 13, 2017
Drug Policy, FDA, Food and Agriculture

Tommy Tobin, MJLST Guest Blogger

Snorting chocolate does not sound like a good idea. In fact, it sounds downright crazy. Enter the aptly named “Coco Loko.”

As reported by the AP, Coco Loko is a cocktail of cacao powder and common energy-drink ingredients, such as guarana and taurine. Marketed by a company called Legal Lean, the product makes several bold claims and promises, including feelings similar to ecstasy and “a steady rush of euphoric energy that is great for party goers to dance the night away without a crash.” Oddly, that promised effect is juxtaposed with promises of “calm focus” and “natural relaxation.”

Legal Lean advises users to “consume responsibly.” Warnings include the all too familiar boilerplate that product statements have not been evaluated by FDA and that the products are not intended to diagnose or treat any disease. A notable product warning also advises potential customers that Coco Loko is “not recommended for children or pregnant women.” Legal Lean also notes that the product “may impair your ability to drive a car or operate machinery, and may cause health problems.” It is certainly helpful that the company recognizes that snorting a chocolate concoction up one’s nose may result in health issues and is warning potential consumers accordingly. Self magazine summarized the situation succinctly: “If it sounds like a bad idea to snort what basically amounts to glorified hot chocolate mix, you’re right.”

As the Huffington Post recently put it, “snortable chocolate exists now, for some reason.” The mere fact that this product exists raises myriad questions, not least of which is what the product actually is and how it will be regulated.

According to ABC News, FDA is currently weighing whether the product falls within its jurisdiction and is currently “not prepared to issue a determination regarding whether and how this product is subject to FDA jurisdiction at this time. In reaching that decision, FDA will need to evaluate the product labeling, marketing information, and/or any other information pertaining to the product’s intended use.”

While the intricacies of regulatory classifications are enough to make one crazy, Coco Loko’s regulatory future remains to be seen. As the administrative law bloodhounds at FDA continue their work sniffing out the proper classification for this product, here are some preliminary thoughts.

Is Coco Loko a Food?

Strictly speaking, probably not. The statutory definition of food, 21 U.S.C. § 321 (f), is not tremendously helpful here. The statute’s most applicable definition defines “food” as an article used for food or drink for man or other animals. Snorting something through one’s nose is not generally how most people consume their food or drink, especially as the nose is woefully devoid of taste buds.

Legal Lean may argue that an alternative use of the product is as a hot chocolate mix. Presumably, the Coco Loko powder could be used as a drink when dissolved in hot water. Even so, the company markets the product as “infused raw cacao snuff.”

The product’s marketing as “snuff” is highly suggestive that the company does not consider that the product is meant to be food, given that “snuff” is taken through the nose. Put differently, the company may huff and puff that the product is a “food,” but in the end, the stuff is “snuff” by their own admission.

Is it a Drug?

Possibly. Coco Loko is likely not a “drug” under 21 U.S.C. § 321 (g). One applicable definition of “drug” includes items “intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals.” Such an intention is expressly disclaimed by the makers of Coco Loko.

Another definition of “drug” applies to “articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals,” with a carve-out for foods and dietary supplements. Coco Loko does promise a rush of serotonin and endorphins, as well as “increased overall happiness.”

The structure or function claims made by Coco Loko could make it a “drug” if it is found to be neither a food nor dietary supplement. Put another way, the product appears to be an inhaled stimulant, and regulators could plausibly put it in the category of “drug” given the claims the product is making, in the case that the product does not fit in other categories.

Is it a Dietary Supplement?

It depends. Regulators could label Coco Loko as a “dietary supplement” under 21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff). Just as the definition of “food” was quite broad, so too is the statutory definition of “dietary supplements,” which helpfully notes that the term:

“1) means a product (other than tobacco) intended to supplement the diet that bears or contains one or more of the following dietary ingredients:

(A) a vitamin;

(B) a mineral;

(C) an herb or other botanical;

(D) an amino acid;

(E) a dietary substance for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake; or

(F) a concentrate, metabolite, constituent, extract, or combination of any ingredient described in clause (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E).”

Given the inclusion of cacao in the product, a colorable claim could be that Coco Loko contains a dietary substance used by man to supplement the diet. That said, is someone actually supplementing their diet by inhaling through their nose? Not being a doctor myself, I can only surmise that the snorted chocolate may have a circuitous path from the nose to one’s stomach—if it ends up there at all.

More on the nose, US News & World Report notes that the product’s label includes B vitamins, ginkgo biloba, blood flow-improving amino acid L-Arginine, as well as energy drink staples guarana and taurine. So, it would seem that Coco Loko would meet the vitamin and amino acid test.

Other aspects of the “dietary supplement” definition in 21 U.S.C. § 321 (ff) include that the item must not represent itself for use as a conventional food or as a sole item of a meal or the diet. “Dietary supplements” must also be labeled as such. If its labeling does not call it a “dietary supplement,” Coco Loko cannot be a “dietary supplement.” According to Ars Technica, Legal Lean is already marketing Coco Loko as a “dietary supplement.”

Incorporated by reference into the § 321 (ff) definition of “dietary supplements” is the requirement that the product be intended for ingestion under 21 U.S.C. § 350 (c)(1)(B). That section requires products be “intended for ingestion in tablet, capsule, powder, softgel, gelcap, or liquid form.” While Coco Loko is a powder, it is unlikely that it is “ingested” in the typical meaning of that term. The statutory provision also provides an alternative definition for items “not intended for ingestion in such a form” that are otherwise “not represented as conventional food and is not represented for use as a sole item of a meal or of the diet.” Both incorporated definitions are predicated on “ingestion,” and Coco Loko’s method of intake is unlikely to fit the plain meaning of “ingestion.”

By analogy, a suppository also bypasses the mouth when they are taken into the body. Even so, suppositories generally go into one end of the alimentary canal—rather than the sinuses or the lungs. Moreover, neither suppositories nor this inhaled chocolate are “ingested.” No less an authority than the Oxford English Dictionary includes a definition of “ingest” that equates ingestion with the introduction of material into the stomach or mouth.

Coco Loko faces an uphill battle getting a “dietary supplement” label given that is probably not “ingested” or intended for ingestion. According to the FDA Law Blog, “FDA has consistently taken the position that articles not intended for ingestion do not qualify as dietary supplements.” In the end, FDA may find that “ingestion” is distinct from insufflation, or the act of breathing something into the body.

Even if Coco Loko is labeled as a “dietary supplement” and met other aspects of the § 321 (ff) definition, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 342 (f), could conceivably find that it presents a “significant or unreasonable risk of illness or injury.” While unlikely, the Secretary has the authority to declare a dietary supplement so unsafe that it poses “an imminent hazard to public health or safety.” That said, do not hold your breath for such a declaration—if you do, it’d be harder to inhale the chocolate.

Concluding Thoughts

While the safety and propriety of snorting crystalline chocolate powder through one’s nostrils is up for debate, FDA is hard at work sniffing out the proper regulatory classification of Coco Loko.

My preliminary thought is that Coco Loko might be labeled a “dietary supplement,” given its ingredients. On the other hand, its method of delivery—through the nasal passage—is not one typically seen in dietary supplements and is unlikely to fit the “intended for ingestion” prong of the incorporated statutory definition.

Alternatively, FDA may label the product a “drug,” especially with its “structure or function” claims. Either way, if you think I’m going to go snort chocolate anytime soon—you’re loko.

1 2 3 … 5 »

FDA

Contact Information