Allergan corporation has filed a law suit against the Federal government challenging the FDA’s limits for companies discussing or promoting off-label uses of approved medicines. This is not a new issue, but the news reports indicate that Allergan is going very old school and basing their legal challenge on Constitutional freedom of speech rights.
The issue is not can doctors and patients use approved medicines for conditions, (or in ways), which are not specifically approved by the FDA, but can companies discuss these off-label uses with physicians or provide them with published information about these off-label uses?
Competing Risk-Benefit Perspectives
The competing risk-benefit perspectives that surround this issue are nearly identical to the trade-offs that all stakeholders in biomedical research and development face – including the FDA, companies, patients, clinicians, and legislators:
- Creating a landscape that protects individuals and public safety
- Being flexible enough to provide clinicians and patients access to the best available treatment possibilities
- Providing companies a reasonable market environment that creates incentives for developing new treatments and investigating new uses for already approved medicines, which also has marketing rules that are as clear as possible so companies can conduct business without being excessively concerned about straying into regulatory gray zones
Off-label use is common in clinical practice – particularly for disease areas like cancer – because it often represents the standard of care. And in situations where a medicine approved to treat a common condition has an off-label use for a rare condition, the company has very little incentive to conduct the expensive and time-consuming clinical research to get the FDA to approve that rare off-label use.
There are a few key points underlying the issue of communicating information about off-label uses:
- The Constitutional freedom of speech rights for a company are not as expansive as for an individual
- The FDA’s regulatory authority focuses on the approval for sale and marketing of medicines, (and some other product areas), and not their use in clinical practice – with some very rare exceptions
- The FDA’s position about companies disseminating information about off-label uses has not be fixed in stone
On this last point, the 1997 FDA Modernization Act included a provision to expand the ability of companies to give physicians journal articles and similar material about off-label uses of approved medicines. After that the Washington Legal Foundation brought a law suit seeking to expand off-label information dissemination. And when the FDAMA provisions expired in 2006, the FDA proceeded with rule-making guidance to replace the FDAMA provisions, and this final guidance became effective in January 2009.
Not having read the details of Allergan’s legal challenge – and since the FDA doesn’t comment on current suits – it’s hard to assess the specific pros and cons of their positions. But considering the extensive legislative and case law involving this issue, the company certainly seems to have a very steep hill to climb. On the other hand, it would seem unusual that they would spend the time and money to bring a legal challenge unless they felt they had a chance to prevail. However, Allergan’s suit may have implications for the FDA, industry, clinicians, and patients for several or many years – even if they lose – because they may be making a pretty big splash in the policy pond with such a public challenge to change the rules for off-label promotion, and this will likely alter the landscape for any future actions.
I was involved with a somewhat analogous situation in the mid-1990s where a lot of groundwork had been done to prepare for a substantive debate about reforming a fundamental life sciences policy issue. However, one company had an urgent and particular need for a legislative change, and they proceeded to pursue every reasonable and extraordinary avenue for getting the change they wanted. The end result was that all our subsequent discussions were short-circuited because every policy stakeholder’s response upon raising this issue, was “Oh, I know about THAT issue,” with the implication that it was something they wanted nothing to do with because of the controversy the one company had stirred up with their expansive activities. (I’ve purposefully not named the issue so as to not perturb anyone or any company about something that happened years ago.)
Collective Sausage Making
The moral of this story is that to make productive changes stakeholders within and across groups frequently need to work together. And if they don’t, the well can easily get polluted for everyone when policy makers avoid any action because they connect the issue to a nasty smell. This may be another manifestation of the old adage, “the two things that shouldn’t be seen being made are laws and sausages.”