直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Offices
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP Health Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

IP Health Blog

FDA Draft Guidance on Drug-Drug Interaction Assessment for Therapeutic Proteins

August 21, 2020

By Kenneth S. Guerra

Edited by Megan L. Meyers; Susan Y. Tull

On August 10, 2020, FDA issued draft guidance on Drug-Drug Interaction Assessment for Therapeutic Proteins.  The draft provides a systematic, risk-based approach to help sponsors of investigational new drug applications and applicants of biologic license applications determine the need for drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies for a therapeutic protein.  FDA explains that even though the guidance is directed to therapeutic proteins, general concepts could be applicable to other biological products, including cellular and gene therapies. 

When evaluating the potential for DDIs, the guidance recommends sponsors consider the mechanisms for potential DDIs between therapeutic proteins or between a therapeutic protein and small molecules.  The draft then provides several examples of the types of situations in which an assessment of the DDI potential of a therapeutic protein may be warranted.  For example, the guidance notes that therapeutic proteins that are proinflammatory cytokines (e.g., peginterferon) can cause downregulation of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, increasing exposure levels to drugs that pass through this metabolic pathway.  Conversely, therapeutic proteins that reduce cytokine levels can boost CYP expression and reduce exposure for drugs that are CYP substrates.  In either case, the draft recommends that sponsors should evaluate the need for DDI studies to further inform the labeling for such therapeutic proteins, which should include a description of study results and any clinical actions. 

The draft notes that if the sponsor believes the potential for clinically significant DDI is low, a sponsor may not need to include potential DDIs in labeling language as long as they can provide an adequate justification to FDA.  Alternatively, the sponsor may conduct a DDI study in the relevant indicated population to further inform labeling. 

The draft also discusses antibody-drug conjugates and instructs how to evaluate the systemic exposure of the small molecule drug component of the conjugate. 

The guidance then highlights various types of DDI assessments and includes study design considerations for in vitro and animal studies, clinical studies, population pharmacokinetic modeling (nested DDI studies), and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, recommending a systematic, science-driven approach to evaluating the DDI potential of therapeutic proteins. 

Lastly, the draft includes labeling recommendations for DDIs and directs sponsors to previously issued FDA guidance. 

Readers are encouraged to read the draft guidance, also available on FDA’s website. 

Tags

FDA Guidance, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), drugs, Investigational New Drug Application (INDA), Biologic License Application (BLA)

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Biologics

Related Offices

Atlanta, GA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Kenneth S. Guerra
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4124
Email
Megan_Meyers
Megan L. Meyers
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6565
Email

Copyright © 2020 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.

Related Insights

Conference

2022 All Ohio Annual Institute on Intellectual Property

October 11-12, 2022

Virtual

Workshop

Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA

October 11-27, 2022

Webinar

Conference

2022 World IP Forum

October 10-12, 2022

Bangkok

Webinar

PTAB Litigation Strategies for 2022 and Beyond

September 1, 2022

Webinar

IP Updates

Strategic Considerations for Opting In or Out of the Unified Patent Court

2022

Conference

ABPI 42nd International Congress on Intellectual Property

August 22-23, 2022

São Paulo

Webinar

Patent Infringement After Duncan Parking Technologies: Doctrine of Equivalents, Claim Construction

August 18, 2022

Webinar

Prosecution First Blog

The CCPA’s Influence on Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Jurisprudence

August 12, 2022

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Artificial Intelligence Ineligible for Inventorship

August 12, 2022

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently 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.

If you have European patents, you need to know about the Unified Patent Court (UPC).

Finnegan
Click Here
  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2022 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP