Drug Safety: A Side-by-Side Comparison of Bills in the 110th Congress

Drug Safety:
A Side-by-Side Comparison of
Bills in the 110th Congress
March 13, 2007
Susan Thaul
Specialist in the Regulation of Prescription Drugs and Biologics
Domestic Social Policy Division



Drug Safety: A Side-by-Side Comparison
of Bills in the 110th Congress
Summary
Members of Congress and the public are increasingly concerned about the
ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that the drugs sold in
the United States are safe and effective. In November 2004, FDA asked the Institute
of Medicine (IOM) to assess the current system for evaluating and ensuring drug
safety and to make recommendations to improve risk assessment, surveillance, and
the safe use of drugs. IOM released The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and
Protecting the Health of the Public in September 2006, and FDA issued its response
in January 2007. The following drug safety bills have been introduced in the 110th
Congress: S. 468 / H.R. 788, S. 484, and H.R. 1165.
Although the legislation and the IOM report address many of the same drug
safety issues, the bills differ in their treatment of FDA authority to require action and
to enforce compliance, comparative effectiveness studies, and how to fund any
additional agency activities. For example, S. 468 / H.R. 788 would strengthen FDA’s
post-approval drug safety activities by creating a new Center for Postmarket
Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics. The other bills would leave these
activities where they currently reside in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
All the bills would allow the FDA to penalize (through civil fines, injunctions, or
withdrawal of marketing approval or licensure) drug manufacturers who did not
conduct required postmarket studies or who failed to report study results.
The IOM committee recommended that Congress provide substantially
increased resources to FDA to bolster its drug safety activities. S. 468 / H.R. 788
would authorize appropriations to carry out the bill’s provisions, S. 484 would rely
on user fees, expanding FDA’s existing authority to use such fees, and H.R. 1165
does not address funding.



Contents
Background ..................................................1
Report Highlights..............................................2
FDA organization..........................................2
FDA authority to require action and to enforce compliance.........2
Comparative-effectiveness studies.............................3
FDA funding.............................................3
Comparison of Drug Safety Provisions.............................4
Organizational culture......................................4
Science and expertise.......................................7
Regulation ..............................................17
Communication ..........................................24
Resources ...............................................26
List of Tables
Table 1. Comparison of Drug Safety Provisions in S. 468 / H.R. 788,
S. 484, and H.R. 1165 in Relation to Recommendations
in the Institute of Medicine September 2006 Report and
the Food and Drug Administration’s January 2007 Response............4



Drug Safety:
A Side-by-Side Comparison
of Bills in the 110th Congress
Background
Members of Congress and the public are increasingly concerned about the
ability of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure that the drugs sold in
the United States are safe and effective. Legislators, industry, the public, and FDA
scientists have raised questions about FDA’s collection and release of safety data,
and whether the agency has the authority and resources to ensure adequate research
over the marketing life of the pharmaceutical products it regulates.
In 2004, the regulatory, medical, and industry debate became very public with
reports of cardiovascular hazards posed by the pain medicine Vioxx (one of several
COX-2 nonsteroidal antiflammatory drugs then on the market), and of children facing
increased risk of suicidal thoughts and actions when taking certain antidepressants
(such as the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors Paxil and Zoloft). Not only was
Congress asking whether the manufacturers knew of these risks while continuing to
market the drug, but also whether FDA should have known of the risks and done
more to protect the public.
At the height of public and Congressional attention, FDA asked the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) to “conduct an independent assessment of the current system for
evaluating and ensuring drug safety postmarketing and make recommendations to
improve risk assessment, surveillance, and the safe use of drugs.” IOM released its1
report in September 2006. FDA issued its response in January 2007 and noted
relevant activities the agency has begun and others it has planned.2 Among the
planned activities are those in its proposal for a reauthorization of the prescription
drug user fee program (PDUFA IV).3


1 Institute of Medicine (IOM), The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the
Health of the Public, Alina Baciu, Kathleen Stratton, Sheila P. Burke, Editors, Committee
on the Assessment of the US Drug Safety System, Board on Population Health and Public
Health Practice (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006).
2 Food and Drug Administration (FDA), “The Future of Drug Safety — Promoting and
Protecting the Health of the Public: FDA’s Response to the Institute of Medicine’s 2006
Report,” January 2007.
3 Congress first gave FDA authority to collect these fees with the Prescription Drug User
Fee Act of 1992; reauthorized twice, the current authority expires Oct. 1, 2007. See CRS
Report RL33914, The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA): Background and Issues
for PDUFA IV Reauthorization, by Susan Thaul.

In the meantime, several Members of Congress have introduced bills to address
drug safety and FDA’s role in protecting the public’s health.
Report Highlights
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of:
!Institute of Medicine: recommendations in its September 2006
report, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the
Health of the Public;
!Food and Drug Administration: announced actions and plans to
address problems identified in the IOM report;
!S. 468 / H.R. 788 (the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of

2007), introduced on January 31, 2007, by Senators Grassley, Dodd,


Mikulski, and Bingaman, and Representatives Tierney and Ramstad;
!S. 484 (the Enhancing Drug Safety and Innovation Act of 2007),
introduced on February 1, 2007, by Senators Enzi and Kennedy;4 and
!H.R. 1165 (the Swift Approval, Full Evaluation (SAFE) Drug Act),
introduced on February 16, 2007, by Representative Markey.
The bills and the IOM report address many of the same issues, often with similar
approaches though at times with major differences. The IOM report addressed only
drugs, not biological products (e.g., vaccines), in keeping with the charge FDA gave
it. FDA’s response to the IOM recommendations, therefore, relates to drugs, but also
states that the approach to drug safety is relevant to all medical products. All the bills
would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (regarding the regulation of
drugs); S. 484 would also amend the Public Health Service Act (regarding the
regulation of biologics). Highlighted below are a few of the more significant items
regarding drug safety.
FDA organization. S. 468/H.R. 788 would remove the post-approval drug
safety activities from FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and
create a new Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics
(the Center). The IOM report does not suggest that approach to strengthen FDA’s
postmarket activities, nor do the other pending bills.
FDA authority to require action and to enforce compliance. The bills
and the IOM recommendations aim to strengthen FDA’s ability to make sure drug
manufacturers (application sponsors) appropriately design and conduct postmarket
studies and disclose the results to the public. S. 468/H.R. 788 lays out requirements
that the new Center for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics
would administer; S. 484 would achieve this with a process it calls a Risk Evaluation
and Mitigation Strategy (REMS); and H.R. 1165 would allow the Secretary to require
certain studies. The IOM recommended and all the bills would allow the Secretary
to penalize (through civil fines, injunctions, or withdrawal of marketing approval or


4 This report covers Title I (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies) of S. 484; it does not
cover Title II (Reagan-Udall Institute for Applied Biomedical Research), Title III (Clinical
Trials), or Title IV (Conflicts of Interest).

licensure) sponsors who do not conduct required studies or complete them on time,
or who fail to report study results.
Comparative-effectiveness studies. The IOM report and the bills address
the need for FDA authority to require pre- and postmarket studies. S. 468 alone
would give FDA the authority to require that those studies compare a drug’s safety
and effectiveness with that of other drugs.
FDA funding. All three bills would require a variety of drug safety activities.
They differ in how to fund them. S. 468 / H.R. 788 would authorize appropriations
to carry out the bill’s provisions; S. 484 would rely on user fees, expanding FDA’s
existing authority to use such fees; and H.R. 1165 does not address funding. The
IOM committee not only recommended that Congress provide “substantially
increased resources” to FDA, but noted that all its other recommendations could not
be implemented without those resources.
Table 1, beginning on page 4, addresses the range of FDA drug safety activities
that the IOM recommended, along with FDA’s response, and activities that the bills
would authorize or require. The table structure follows the 25 IOM
recommendations within the five categories of organizational culture, science and
expertise, regulation, communication, and resources.5


5 CRS Report RL32797, Drug Safety and Effectiveness: Issues and Action Options After
FDA Approval, by Susan Thaul, addresses many of the topics covered in the IOM report and
the Senate bills. The IOM report also addressed clinical trial registration and results
database requirements; a separate CRS Report RL32832, Clinical Trials Reporting and
Publication, by Erin D. Williams, describes and discusses those recommendations.

CRS-4
Table 1. Comparison of Drug Safety Provisions in S. 468 / H.R. 788, S. 484, and H.R. 1165
in Relation to Recommendations in the Institute of Medicine September 2006 Report
and the Food and Drug Administration’s January 2007 Response
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
anizational culture
The committee recommends that theNot directed to FDA.No provision.No provision.No provision.
A be amended to require that the FDA
mmissioner currently appointed by the
esident with the advice and consent of the
nate also be appointed for a six-year term
ce. The Commissioner should be an
iki/CRS-RL33925ividual with appropriate expertise to head
g/wcience-based agency, demonstrated
s.or to lead and inspire, and a provenmmitment to public health, scientific
leakrity, transparency, and communication.
://wikie President may remove the Commissioner office only for reasons of inefficiency,
httpglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
The committee recommends that anEngaging externalNo new entity. Refers toNo new entity. Refers to theNo provision.


ternal Management Advisory Board beconsultants to help developrequired responsibilities ofFDA Drug Safety Oversight
nted by the Secretary of HHS [thecomprehensive strategy.the FDA Drug Safety andBoard. [Note: FDA limits
ent of Health and Human Services]Risk Management Advisorymembership to federal
ise the FDA Commissioner inCommittee, which it wouldemployees although allowing
pherding CDER [the FDA Center for Drugtransfer to the new Center formembers from outside of
aluation and Research] (and the agency asPostmarket Evaluation andFDA.]
hole) to implement and sustain theResearch for Drugs and
anges necessary to transform the center’sBiologics.
— by improving morale and retention
professional staff, strengthening
sparency, restoring credibility, and
ing a culture of safety based upon a
ecycle approach to risk-benefit.

CRS-5
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The committee recommends that the[See response toNo comparable provision;No provision.No provision.
of HHS direct the FDArecommendation 3.2.]however, a related provision
mmissioner and Director of CDER, withwould establish a Center for
sistance of the Management AdvisoryPostmarket Evaluation and
rd, to develop a comprehensive strategyResearch for Drugs and
ustained cultural change that positionsBiologics (the new Center)
ency to fulfill its mission, includingas a separate entity within
otecting the health of the public.FDA (not an administrative
office of the FDA Center for
Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER) or the
FDA Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research
iki/CRS-RL33925(CBER). Would also transfer
g/wthe Office of Surveillance
s.orand Epidemiology (OSE,formerly called the Office of
leakDrug Safety) from CDER to
://wikithe new Center.
httpThe committee recommends that CDERInitiated two pilot projects toWould require the newNo provision.No provision.


int an OSE [Office of Surveillance andevaluate models forCenter Director to review all
idemiology] staff member to each Newinvolving OSE staff (1) inapplications and supplements
Application review team and assignreviews and (2) moreand associated analyses
int authority to OND [CDER’s Office ofsignificantly, in postmarketbefore approval. Authorizes
w Drugs] and OSE for postapprovaldecision making.the new Center to require
latory actions related to safety.postmarket studies
Would also improveconcerning safety and
communication betweeneffectiveness, including
OSE and OND and work tocomparisons with other
assess the impact and valueproducts, specifying date
of routinely includingdue; studies could use
postmarket review staff onepidemiology or other
premarket review teams.observational designs, or
databases.

CRS-6
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
Established an associate
director of safety and a
safety regulatory program
manager in each CDER
OND review division; began
regular safety meetings
between OSE and all OND
review divisions.
FDAs proposal for a
reauthorized Prescription
Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA), which it refers to
iki/CRS-RL33925as PDUFA IV, includes
g/wprovisions to improve
s.orcommunication andcoordination between OSE
leakand OND, including an
://wikiassessment of the value ofincluding postmarket review
httpstaff on premarket review
teams.
Created new procedures
around decision-making
about requesting further
studies and labeling changes.
Creating a standard operating
procedure for presenting
postmarket safety issues to
advisory committees.



CRS-7
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
To restore appropriate balance betweenPDUFA IV proposalNo comparable provision;Would extend the definitionNo provision.
s dual goals of speeding access toincludes safety-relatedhowever, the bill wouldof the activities on which
vative drugs and ensuring drug safetyactivities, including workauthorize appropriations fordrug user fees may be used
er the product’s lifecycle, the committeetoward identifying andsafety activities [see below].to include the review and
mmends that Congress should introduceassessing risk managementimplementation of the Risk
ecific safety-related performance goals inand communication tools;Evaluation and Mitigation
cription Drug User Fee Act IV inexploration of benefits ofStrategy (REMS [see
adverse event reporting;below]) and the review of
acquisition and use ofsafety information including
databases; develop guidanceadverse event reports.
on pharmacoepidemiologic
studies and on clinical
hepatoxicity and enriched
iki/CRS-RL33925trial designs; and improve
g/wcommunication between
s.orOSE and OND.
leakience and expertise
://wikiThe committee recommends that inBegan upgrading the Web-Would not require systematicNo provision.No provision.


httpder to improve the generation of new safetyaccessible Adverse Eventsand scientific review, but
ls and hypotheses, CDER (a) conduct aReporting System (AERS) IIwould require that the new
stematic, scientific review of the AERSto add signal detection andCenter Director improve
Adverse Event Reporting System]tracking tools. Implementingpostmarket surveillance
stem, (b) identify and implement changeselectronic system acrossprograms and activities.
ey factors that could lead to a moreCDER offices to track
icient system, and (c) systematicallypostmarket safety issues.
plement statistical-surveillance methods
a regular and routine basis for theIf PDUFA IV proposal is
tomated generation of new safety signals.accepted, would seek outside
research organizations to
study how to maximize
public health benefits of the
collection and reporting of
adverse events over a
product’s lifecycle.

CRS-8
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The committee recommends that inWould use PDUFA IV fundsWould require that the newNo provision.No provision.


der to facilitate the formulation and testingto acquire databases and hireCenter Director conduct
drug safety hypotheses, CDER (a) increasestaff to use them; conductpostmarketing surveillance,
tramural and extramural programs thattargeted postmarketingusing risk-benefit analyses,
nd study data from largesurveillance, study drug-adverse event reports, and
tomated healthcare databases, and (b)class effects, and detectclinical and observational
de in these programs studies on drugsignals.studies. Would require the
ilization patterns and backgroundnew Center to contract with
for adverse events of interest,Sponsoring public meetingdomestic and international
d (c) develop and implement activeto explore opportunities forpatient databases (or require
eillance of specific drugs and diseases aslinking private- and public-the drug sponsor to do so) to
a variety of settings.sectorpostmarketing safetyconduct epidemiologic and
monitoring systems to createother observational studies.
iki/CRS-RL33925a virtual integrated,
g/winteroperable Nationwide
s.ormedical product safetynetwork.
leak
://wikiWould use PDUFA IV fundsto develop guidance on
http c o nd uc t i ng
pharmacoepidemiologic
studies using large healthcare
data sets; would hold public
workshop to identify best
practices and issue guidance
on such practices.
Would develop guidance on
clinical hepatoxicity and
enriched trial designs to
support the prevention of
safety problems during drug
development.

CRS-9
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
Current data-sharing
activities include agreements
with the Agency for
Healthcare Research and
Quality and the Veterans
Health Administration, and
active monitoring and
analysis of influenza vaccine
sa fe ty.
Developing (through the
critical path initiatives)
techniques for predictive
iki/CRS-RL33925toxicology, identifying
g/wdrugs cardiovascular risk,
s.orpreventing drug-inducedliver injury, using integrated
leakinformation, using new tools
://wikito enhance blood safety, andenhancing the safety of gene
http therapy.
The committee recommends that theSigned agreement with theNo provision.No provision.No provision.


of HHS, working with theVeterans Health
of Veterans Affairs and Defense,Administration to share
elop a public-private partnership withinformation and expertise
g sponsors, public and private insurers,regarding medical product
r-profit and not-for-profit health caresafety, effectiveness, and
ovider organizations, consumer groups, andpatterns of use.
e pharmaceutical companies to prioritize,
n, and organize funding for confirmatory
safety and efficacy studies of public
lth importance. Congress should
pitalize the public share of this partnership.

CRS-10
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The committee recommends that CDERPDUFA IV proposalWould set procedure toWould require a sponsor toNo provision.


sure the performance of timely andincludes work towardrequire risk managementsubmit a proposed Risk
ifically valid evaluations (whetheridentifying risk managementactivities when deemedEvaluation and Mitigation
e internally or by industry sponsors) oftools; assessment of selectednecessary and would requireStrategy (REMS) as part of
Minimization Action Plans (RiskMAPs).Risk Minimization Actionaction to ensure follow-upits application for drug
Plans, risk management andand completion of sponsorapproval or biologics
risk communication tools;requirements.licensure. REMS must
annual systematic review andinclude labeling, reports of
public discussion of selectedstudies and surveillance data,
programs and tools andand a pharmacovigilance
dissemination of reports; andstatement. Based on the
public workshops to getestimated number of people
prioritization guidance fromwho would take the drug,
iki/CRS-RL33925industry and others.disease seriousness, expected
g/wduration of treatment, and
s.oravailability of othertreatments, the
leakpharmacovigilance statement
://wikiwould provide an assessmentof adequacy of REMS
httpactivities to assess serious
risks, to identify unexpected
serious risks of the drug and
whether studies are
necessary, and, if studies are
necessary, to describe what
observational and clinical
studies are required.

CRS-11
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
If the Secretary were to
determine it necessary, the
Secretary could require that
the REMS include a sponsor-
developed Medication Guide
or patient package insert; a
plan to communicate with
health care providers,
encouraging implementation
of relevant REMS
components; post-approval
observational studies (that
the applicant or the Secretary
iki/CRS-RL33925could conduct) or clinical
g/wtrials, with target schedules
s.orfor completion andreporting; and restrictions on
leak a d ve r t i s i ng.
://wikiWould require an assessment
httpof an approved REMS
annually for the first three
years after initial
approval/licensure and then
at a frequency (including
none) as specified in the
RE M S .



CRS-12
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The committee recommends that CDERHeld workshop onWould require that the newWould require REMS toNo provision.


elop and continually improve a systematicquantitative benefit-riskCenter conduct and use risk-include consideration of
to risk-benefit analysis for useassessment; exploring use ofbenefit analysis, but wouldscope of use, seriousness of
oughout the FDA in the preapproval andbest practices andnot require that FDA developthe disease or condition that
st-approval settings.identification and testing ofand improve a systematicthe drug is used to treat or
quantitative tools; haveapproach.prevent, seriousness of
introduced training coursesadverse events, and other
for medical reviewers.available treatment.
Created group of internalWhen concerned about a
experts to developserious risk that may be
quantitative methods forrelated to the pharmacologic
safety evaluation, developclass of a drug, the Secretary
iki/CRS-RL33925and disseminate bestcould defer a REMS
g/wpractices of safety reviewsassessment while convening
s.orduring product development,and to provide consistencymeetings of the public,advisory committees, or
leakacross review divisions.expert panels to discuss
://wikiInitiated critical pathpossible responses to thatconcern.
httpinitiatives [See response to
recommendation 4.2 above]Secretary may coordinate
and a pilot program totimetable to review efforts of
systematically review safetyinternational marketing
profiles of new molecularauthorities.
entities (NMEs) [See 5.4
belo w] .
Established program with the
National Toxicology
Program of the National
Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences to develop
animal model to assess
cancer risk associated with
gene therapy.

CRS-13
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
Initiative underway to
strengthen the safety
evaluation process, including
standardized methodologies,
training and mentoring,
workload prioritization, and
management tools.
The committee recommends that CDER[See responses toNo provision.No provision.No provision.
ernal epidemiologic andrecommendations 3.5 and
atics capacity in order to improve the4.2 above.]
tmarket assessment of drugs.
iki/CRS-RL33925The committee recommends that themmissioner of FDA demonstrate
g/wmmitment to building the agencys
s.orientific research capacity by:
leak
ppointing a Chief Scientist in the officeCommissioner proposedNo comparable provision,No provision.No provision.
://wiki the Commissioner with responsibility forcreation of the Office of thebut the bill would create a
httperseeing, coordinating, and ensuring theChief Medical Officer toseparate Center for
ality and regulatory focus of the agencysoversee FDA scientificPostmarket Evaluation and
ural research programs.operations.Research for Drugs and
Biologics (the new Center)
and the position of Director
of the new Center.
Designating the FDAs Science Board asAsked the FDA ScienceNo provision.No provision.No provision.
tramural advisory committee to theBoard to review scientific
ief Scientist.needs and activities across
FDA; engaging external
consultants to help develop
comprehensive strategy to
improve organizational
cultur e .
ncluding research capacity in theNot addressed.No provision.No provision.No provision.


encys mission statement.

CRS-14
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
pplying resources to support intramuralNot addressed.Would require that the newNo provision.No provision.
earch approved by the Chief Scientist.Center conduct postmarket
risk assessments.
suring that adequate funding to supportNot addressed.Would authorizeWould allow for user-feeNo provision.
tramural research program is requestedappropriations [see below].revenue to be used for
he agency’s annual budget request toREMS evaluation activities.
ngr e ss.
The committee recommends that FDAConducting pilot program toNo comparable provision,Secretary may convene anNo provision.
ve its advisory committees review allreview new molecularbut the bill would requireadvisory committee meeting
Es [new molecular entities] either priorentities [See response topreapproval review by theto review safety concerns or
al or soon after approval to adviserecommendation 5.4 below].new Center, and woulda REMS for a drug or a class
s of ensuring drug safety andrequire advisory committeeof drugs.
iki/CRS-RL33925anaging drug risks.consultation before the newCenter Director makes a
g/wsafety determination or
s.ororders a corrective action.
leak
The committee recommends that allWill increase (to the extentNo provision.No provision.Would require HHS
://wiki drug product advisory committees, andfeasible)Secretary to allow FDA staff
httpy other peer review effort such aspharmacoepidemiologyto present information to an
ntioned above for CDER-reviewed productexperts support to advisoryadvisory committee if staff is
fety, include a pharmacoepidemiologist orcommittees.working on a topic the
individual with comparable public healthcommittee is considering.
pertise in studying the safety of medical
cts.
The committee recommends FDAWill issue new guidances toNo provision.No provision in Title I;No provision.


lish a requirement that a substantialaddress the granting andrelated provisions are in Title
jority of the members of each advisorydisclosure of conflict-of-IV (Conflicts of Interest”).
mittee be free of significant financialinterest waivers for advisory
volvement with companies whose interestscommittee members, and to
y be affected by the committee’simprove the release of
liberations.advisory committee briefing
materials to the public. Will
make advisory committee
member recruitment more
transparent by issuing lists of
vacancies.

CRS-15
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
To ensure that trial registration isNot directed to FDA.[Note: Senators Dodd and Grassley introduced a separate billNo provision.
ndatory, systematic, standardized, and(S. 467) that addresses the issues of clinical trial registration
mplete, and that the registration site is ableand results databases. The comparison of that bill to Title III
modate the reporting of trial results,of S. 484 and the IOM report recommendations appears in a
mittee recommends that Congressseparate CRS product: CRS Report RL32832, Clinical Trials
uire industry sponsors to register in aReporting and Publication, by Erin D. Williams.]
ely manner at clinicaltrials.gov, at a
nimum, all Phase 2 through 4 clinical
ls, wherever they may have been
nducted, if data from the trials are
ended to be submitted to the FDA as
rt of an NDA [new drug application],
ental new drug
tion], or to fulfill a postmarket
iki/CRS-RL33925mitment. The committee furthermmends that this requirement include the
g/wsting of a structured field summary of
s.orafety results of the studies.
leak
The committee recommends that FDANot accepted.Would require that FDA postWould require that FDA postWould require, within 24
://wikist all NDA review packages on theall studies required under theall approved professionalhours of approval, that the
httpcy’s website.preapproval andlabeling and any requiredSecretary publish a summary
postapproval requirements ofpatient labeling in astatement of the scientific
this section.searchable electronicbasis for the approval and
repository.how the decision balanced
risks and benefits. The
statement must include a
description of controversies
and differences of opinion
within FDA and their
resolutions, and include any
statement submitted for the
summary by involved staff.



CRS-16
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The committee recommends that CBERDecisions to publiclyWould require that FDAWould require that the drugWould require biennial
iew teams regularly and systematicallydisclose assessments ofpublish in the Federalsponsor submit REMSreports on approved
tmarket study results andpostmarketing safety studiesRegister and post on theassessments at least annuallyapplications supported by
ake public their assessment of themust be made on a case-by-Internet drug safety andfor the three years afternoninferiority studies, and
nificance of the results with regard to thecase basis.effectiveness information.approval/licensure; after thatbiannual reports regarding
ration of risk and benefit information.at increased or reducedpostmarket studies.
Will publish newsletter on(including none) frequency
FDA website, summarizingas the Secretary determinesWould prohibit directing
results and methods ofto be necessary. Would setFDA staff to distort or
postmarket reviews, andtime limits for the Secretarysuppress scientific research,
providing information onto act on initial REMS andanalysis, opinion, or
emerging safety issues andmodification requests.recommendations or to
on recently approvedwilfully disclose scientific
products.A dispute resolution processinformation that is false,
iki/CRS-RL33925Will issue final guidance onwould include timeframes,and involve review by andmisleading, or incomplete.Would provide for
g/wcommunicating importantrecommendations of thedisciplinary actions and
s.ordrug safety information toDrug Safety Oversight Boardwould require annual
leakhealthcare professionals,(with added expertise, ifInspector General reports.
://wikipatients, and otherconsumers.necessary, from the FDAoffices of Pediatrics,Would also providewhistleblower protection
httpWomens Health, and Rare(with provisions for
Diseases).enforcement and penalities)
and the right to publish.



CRS-17
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
ula tio n
The committee recommends thatNot directed to FDA.Would authorize FDA toWould require that the drugWould authorize the
ngress ensure that the Food and Drugrequire safety andsponsor submit a REMS forSecretary, after providing
ministration has the ability to requireeffectiveness studies,each new drug and biologic,public notice, to order the
h postmarketing risk assessment andincluding in comparison tofor a generic drug (allsponsor to conduct studies to
k management programs as are neededother drugs/biologics,information exceptaddress safety or
onitor and ensure safe use of drugaccording to FDA-specifiedpostapproval clinical trials),effectiveness issues
oducts. These conditions may be imposedtimetable and terms, if, atfor a new indication (eitheridentified after
h before and after approval of a newany time, the new Centerfor a drug with a currentapproval/licensure.
lecular entity, new indication, or newDirector determines theREMS or a drug without a
age, as well as after identification of newneed.REMS when a prescription is
ntraindications or patterns of adverserequired for its dispensing),
ents. The limitations imposed should matchWould authorize FDA toand for new safety
iki/CRS-RL33925pecific safety concerns and benefitsented by the drug product. The riskrequire limitations on thedistribution of a drug orinformation. Would allow asponsor to submit a REMS
g/wssment and risk management programbiologic. These include:assessment at any time.
s.ory include:Would authorize the
leakSecretary to require a REMS
assessment at any time the
://wikiSecretary determines that
httpnew safety information
requires review.
Would require thatWould allow the following
restrictions be commensuraterestrictions on distribution or
with the risks; necessary; anduse during study if Secretary
not unduly burdensome ondetermines it necessary to
patient access to drugs.ensure safety and
Would authorize FDA toeffectiveness (Secretary may
require limitations on aorder the restrictions
products distribution. Thesecontinued, terminated, or
include:changed based on study
results):



CRS-18
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
ibution conditioned on compliancechanges in labeling;changes in labeling;
th agency-initiated changes in drug
.
Distribution conditioned on specificstatements in advertisements;disclosure in advertisements
rnings to be incorporated into allthat the available information
omotional materials (including broadcastmay not allow for full
C [direct-to-consumer] advertising).assessment of serious risks;
or, if the Secretary
determines it necessary,
statement in advertisements
regarding risk or use
information included in the
lab e l.
iki/CRS-RL33925ibution conditioned on a moratoriumFDA (the new Center)FDA review ofrestrictions on DTC
g/w direct to consumer advertising.review of advertisementsadvertisements before theyadvertising;
s.orbefore they are released;are released;
leak
istribution restricted to certainpatient or physiciantraining, experience, orcertain facilities or physician
://wikicilities, pharmacists, or physicians witheducation;certification of healthcaretraining or experience;
httpecial training or experience.providers, pharmacists, and
care setting, or use only in
certain settings;
a compliance system with
restrictions on providers,
pharmacists, patients, and
others who fail to meet
requirements;
ibution conditioned on thedocumentation of safe-useperformance of specified
ormance of specified medicalconditions, such asmedical procedures;


[e.g., requiring a pregnancy testlaboratory test results;
g might cause abnormal fetal
elopment] .

CRS-19
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
ibution conditioned on thethe establishment of a riska new post-approval study or
ormance of specified additional clinicalmanagement plan;changes in the design of an
or other studies.ongoing study, that FDA
could request at the time of
approval/licensure or any
time afterward;
Distribution conditioned on thea patient registry;a patient registry or patient
intenance of an active adverse eventmonitoring;
eillance system.
patients to sign a consent
fo r m;
modification of indication;modification of indication.
iki/CRS-RL33925
g/wthe monitoring of sales and
s.or usage.
leak
For a drug approved
://wikipursuant to accelerated
http approval:
would require, as a condition
of approval, that the sponsor
submit and the Secretary
approve protocols for
postmarket studies, including
timeframe and milestones.
Until the study commitments
are completed, Secretary
must require restrictions on
distribution and use;



CRS-20
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
would also require a
statement on labeling that the
drug received accelerated
approval and that required
studies are underway; to
include a list of issues being
addressed; and labeling to
state that FDA gave
conditional approval under
its accelerated approval
process; and that the drug
will not receive full approval
until completion of studies;
iki/CRS-RL33925would require that theSecretary amend 21CFR314
g/wto require a public meeting if
s.orpostmarket studies after
leakaccelerated approval are not
://wikicompleted within two years;and would require, for a drug
httpapproved based on animal
efficacy data, studies when
ethical and feasible to verify
and describe clincial benefit,
safety and effectiveness.
If a completed study is
inconclusive (or not
completed within five years),
the Secretary would
withdraw product from
commercial distribution,
limiting its availability and
requiring informed consent.



CRS-21
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The committee recommends thatNot directed to FDA.If a sponsor were to fail toWould authorize civil moneyWould consider a drug
ngress provide oversight and enact anycomplete required studies orpenalties of $15,000 — misbranded if it failed to
lation to ensure compliance bycomply with ordered$250,000 per violation (notcomply with postmarket
h the FDA and drug sponsors with thecorrective action, wouldto exceed $1 million withinstudy or distribution
ovisions listed above. FDA needs increasedauthorize FDA to requireone adjudicated proceeding)requirements, or label
ent authority and bettercivil monetary fines offor failure to comply with anchange orders.
ent tools directed at drug sponsors,$250,000 for the first 30-dayapproved REMS.
ich should include fines, injunctions, andperiod, doubling for everyWould authorize civil
thdrawal of drug approval.subsequent 30-day periodWould consider a drugpenalties of not more than
(not to exceed $2 million formisbranded if it failed to100% (300% if violation
any 30-day period); changedcomply with the Secretaryscaused a consumer harm) of
promotion; and withdrawalrequirements to changesponsor’s gross profits from
of product approval orlabeling or regardingsales of the drug, or $1
licensure.advertising.million ($3 million if
iki/CRS-RL33925If the new Center Director[Note: Authority forconsumer harmed),whichever is greater.
g/wdetermined that a productapproval/licensure
s.ormay present an unreasonablewithdrawal already exists inWould authorize the same
leakrisk that cannot belaw.]penalities for failure to act
://wikisatisfactorily alleviated by acorrective action or if awithdue diligence” tocomplete postmarket studies
httpdrugs sponsor fails torequired based on
comply with an order orapplications for a fast track
requirement, the new Centerproduct or accelerated
Director, after consultationapproval of a new drug for a
with the Director of CBERserious or life-threatening
or CBER, could withdraw orillness.
suspend the products
approval/licensure.Would also consider a drug
to be misbranded if a
manufacturer failed to
comply with the Secretarys
order to make specific label
changes to ensure safe and
effective use of the drug.



CRS-22
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The Secretary would have to
publish in the Federal
Register and post on the
Internet details regarding
reason, factual basis, and
reference to supporting
empirical data, for
determination; explanation
that describes why contrary
data are insufficient; and
position taken by each
individual consulted.
The committee recommends thatNot directed to FDA.Does not specify specialDoes not specify specialFor drugs approved under
iki/CRS-RL33925ngress amend the FFDCA to require that carry a special symbol suchsymbol.symbol, but allows FDA torequire statement in ads.accelerated approvalprocedures, would require a
g/w the black triangle used in the UK or anWould authorize FDA, for[Note: As of January 2006,statement on labeling that the
s.oruivalent symbol for new drugs, newtwo years after initialFDA requires date ofdrug received accelerated
leakmbinations of active substances, and newapproval/licensure and for allapproval but not a symbol onapproval and that required
stems of delivery of existing drugs. Thedrugs with outstandinglabel.]studies are underway, and to
://wiki should restrict direct-to-consumerrequired studies, to requireinclude a list of issues being
httpvertising during the period of time thepreapproval submission ofMay require submission ofaddressed. Would also
ecial symbol is in effect.promotional material, and toadvertisements to FDA forrequire labeling to state that
require a statement that thepreclearance; specificFDA gave conditional
product is new.disclosures inapproval under its
advertisements, which mayaccelerated approval process;
include approval date,and that the drug will not
statement that “existingreceive full approval until
information may not havecompletion of studies.


identified or fully assessed
all serious risks of using the
drug,” serious adverse events
listed in drugs labeling, or
protocol to ensure safe use
described in the labeling of
the drug....”

CRS-23
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
May require temporary
moratorium on direct-to-
consumer advertisements for
up to two years after initial
approval if Secretary
determines other required
disclosure is inadequate to
protect public health and
safety, and that such
prohibition is necessary
while additional information
is collected, considering
expected scope of use,
alternatives, and the extent to
iki/CRS-RL33925which studies used toapprove the drug may not
g/whave identified serious risks.
s.or
leakThe committee recommends that FDAConducting pilot developedNo provision.No provision.No provision.


aluate all new data on new molecularby OSE and OND to review
://wikitities no later than five years aftersystematically the safety
httpproval. Sponsors will submit a report ofprofiles of new molecular
mulated data relevant to drug safety andentities on a regularly
icacy, including any additional datascheduled basis to determine
blished in a peer reviewed journal, and willwhether these reviews should
the status of any applicablebe initiated for all NMEs.
nditions imposed on the distribution of theWill incorporate AERS data,
ug called for at or after the time ofdata mining analysis,
al.epidemiologic data,
postmarketing clinical trial
information, and a review of
the Periodic Safety Update
Reports (U.S. Periodic
Reports) to identify potential
safety concerns early in the
product life cycle.

CRS-24
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
m m unica tio n
The committee recommends thatEstablishing a new advisoryNo provision.No provision.No provision.


ngress enact legislation establishing a newcommittee regarding FDAs
advisory committee oncommunication policies and
munication with patients andpractices; members will
umers. The committee would beinclude patients and
posed of members who representconsumers and experts in
sumer and patient perspectives andrisk and crisis
anizations. The advisory committee wouldcommunication and social
ise CBER and other FDA centers onand cognitive sciences.
munication issues related to efficacy,
fety, and use during the lifecycle of drugs
d other medical products, and it would
iki/CRS-RL33925pport the centers in their mission tohelpblic get the accurate, science-based
g/wormation they need to use medicines and
s.or to improve their health.”
leak
://wiki
http

CRS-25
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
The committee recommends that theEstablished a working groupWould require that FDAWould authorize FDA toNo provision.


Office of Drug Safety Policy andto develop a CBER riskmake safety issues public viarequire a MedGuide or
mmunication should develop a cohesivecommunication strategicthe Federal Register andpatient package insert, and a
k communication plan that includes, at aplan. Doing so will exploreInternet, but does not requirecommunication plan to
nimum, a review of all Center riskcommunication tools, anddevelopment of a plan.providers.
mmunication activities, evaluation andevaluate and improve the
ision of communication tools for clarityCBER website.Would require that, not lessWould require that the
d consistency, and priority-setting to ensurethan every 90 days, theSecretary, within one year,
icient use of resources.Established theSecretary publish in thesubmit to congress an
Bioinformatics Board in theFederal Register:assessment of the
Office of the Commissionerinformation about requiredinformation technology (IT)
to improve the public’sstudies to include type,infrastructure (data
ability to communicate withnature, outcomes, datecollection and data mining
FDA, including adverserequired by FDA or agreedsystems, and external
iki/CRS-RL33925event reports and consumercomplaints.to by sponsor, date forcompletion, and reason thatdatabase and personnelassets and training programs)
g/wany study was not completedthat FDA would need to:
s.orby deadline; progress reportsconduct the activities that
leakand results of completedthis bill would require;
://wikistudies; and explanations ofthe new Center Director’sachieve interoperabilityamong FDA Centers and
httpdeterminations, if any.product sponsors; and use
electronic health records.
Also required would be an
assessment of whether those
assets were sufficient, a plan
for enhancing FDAs IT
assets, and an assessment of
what additional resources
FDA would need to make
those IT enhancements.

CRS-26
Institute of MedicineFDA January 2007S. 468, Grassley-Dodd-Mikulski-Bingaman & S. 484, Enzi-KennedyH.R. 1165, Markey
eptember 2006 report recommendationsresponse to IOM reportH.R. 788, Tierney-Ramstad
Would require the HHSWould require that the
Secretary, in consultationSecretary, through FDA and
with the FDA Commissionerthe National Institutes of
and the Directors of the newHealth, establish a publicly
Center and CDRH, to submitavailable, searchable
a report to Congress aboutrepository of structured,
current postmarketelectronic product
surveillance of FDA-information; and report
approved medical devicesprogress annually to
that identifies gaps,Congress.
recommends ways to
improve them, and identifies
changes in authority needed
to make those improvements,
iki/CRS-RL33925recognizing the legitimatedifferences between devices
g/wand other medical products.
s.or
leakso urces
://wikiTo support improvements in drugNotes that PDUFA IV funds,Would authorizeWould authorize the use ofNo provision.


httpfety and efficacy activities over awhich require congressionalappropriations (beginningPDUFA fees for safety
ducts lifecycle, the committeeaction, would not bewith $50 million in FY2008,activities specified in this
mmends that the Administration shouldsufficient to fully implementgoing to $150 million inbill; would amend the
est and Congress should approvethe IOM recommendations.FY2012) to carry out thisPDUFA provisions [21 USC
bstantially increased resources in bothbill’s provisions.379(c)(2)] to include
nd personnel for the FDA.directions for the Secretarys
calculation of workload
adjustments for annual
adjustments to fees.