April 18, 2018
Authored and Edited by Bonnie Fletcher Price, Ph.D.; Jonathan R. Davies, Ph.D.
On April 2, 2018, the United States Pharmacopeial Convention (“USP”) issued a statement that it will not develop a new monograph for a biologic unless there is stakeholder consensus supporting its creation, including support from FDA. USP proposed revising Section 2.20 Official Articles of the General Notices and Requirements to add the following language at the end of the second paragraph: “For a biologic product licensed under the Public Health Service Act, the official title shall be the title specified in the relevant monograph plus any suffix designated by FDA unless otherwise specified in the applicable monograph.” USP’s revision was intended to “align compendial names with FDA’s biologics naming approach and avoid potential issues for manufacturers and other stakeholders.”
In a March 28, 2018 letter to the USP, Janet Woodcock, Director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and Peter Marks, Director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, raised concerns that “monographs for biological products may impede or delay innovative technology and present additional unnecessary burden on regulated industry.” Specifically, FDA raised concerns that monographs for biological products could complicate licensure of biosimilar products that meet the requirements of PHSA section 351(k), but do not match the standards in the reference product USP monograph.
As an alternative approach, FDA encouraged USP to develop “optional standards ‘that are consistent with the flexible approach FDA uses to properly account for the complex nature of biological products.’”
The comment period for this proposed revision ended on March 30, and USP is currently reviewing stakeholder comments.
abbreviated biologic license application (aBLA), Biologic License Application (BLA), Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), FDA Guidance, Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Conference
2nd Annual Forum on IP, Funding and Tech Strategies for Novel Therapeutic Modalities
March 20, 2024
Boston
Webinar
February 15, 2024
Webinar
Ad Law Buzz Blog
February 1, 2024
Webinar
Navigating Your Life Sciences Opposition: Tips for Best Practice When You Are Opposing or Opposed
December 12, 2023
Webinar
Webinar
November 28, 2023
Webinar
Conference
3rd Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 10-26, 2023
Virtual
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.