Rachel E. Sachs

Ensuring the safe and effective FDA regulation of fecal microbiota transplantation

Scientists, policymakers, and medical professionals alike have become increasingly worried about the rise of antibiotic resistance, and the growing number of infections due to bacteria like Clostridium difficile, which cause a significant number of deaths and are imposing increasing costs on our health care system. However, in the last few years, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), the transplantation of stool from a healthy donor into the bowel of a patient, has emerged as a startlingly effective means to treat recurrent C. difficile infections. At present, the FDA is proposing to regulate FMT as a biologic drug. However, this proposed classification is both underregulatory and overregulatory. The FDAs primary goal is to ensure that patients have access to safe, effective treatments—and as such they should regulate some aspects of FMT more stringently than they propose to, and others less so. This essay will examine the nature of the regulatory challenges the FDA will face in deciding to regulate FMT as a biologic drug, and will then evaluate available policy alternatives for the FDA to pursue, ultimately concluding that the FDA ought to consider adopting a hybrid regulatory model as it has done in the case of cord blood.

Encouraging New Uses for Old Drugs

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a new drug typically coincides with a period of patent protection, during which the manufacturer will often apply for additional indications to expand the market for the product. For example, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinib (Gleevec; Novartis) was originally approved to treat Philadelphia chromosome– positive chronic myelogenous leukemia, but has since been approved for treatment of other cancers. Many noncancer drugs also follow this pattern, including botulinum toxin A (Botox; Allergan), which was originally approved for the treatment of strabismus and blepharospasm and subsequently approved for treatment of cervical dystonia, cosmetic uses, and chronic migraine. This pattern of additional testing and approvals is common for more expensive on-patent drugs, but new indications are rarely sought for less-expensive generic drugs, for which it is more difficult to profit from the research. This creates a policy conundrum: follow-on innovation for low-cost generic products offers a rare opportunity to simultaneously improve health outcomes and likely reduce health care expenditures, but how could such research be encouraged?

An FDA Commissioner for the 21st Century

The FDA faces challenges including a speed-versus-safety trade-off, the need to work well with industry, pressure on drug pricing, and tough policy choices under the 21st Century Cures Act. Commissioner-nominee Scott Gottlieb seems well qualified to address them.

Public Participation in Drafting of the 21st Century Cures Act

The 21st Century Cures Act is a major act of legislation that contains numerous changes to drug and device regulation. The House of Representatives passed the Act after considerable interest group lobbying, but the bill and the key changes made during its drafting remain controversial. Using publicly disclosed records of written comments on the bill, we reviewed the key areas of lobbying activity and the compromises made in the final text. We focused on legislative provisions relating to management of the National Institutes of Health, incentives for medical product development, and approval standards for new drugs and devices. By the end of the first comment period, the Committee received 118 comments. Most respondents were patient organizations, professional societies, and pharmaceutical and device companies. Overall, the majority of public comments were positive, although public health and consumer organizations were underrepresented in the number of submitted comments. As the legislative process continued, the draft bill underwent several changes relating to NIH funding, market exclusivity provisions, and scrutiny of regulatory evidentiary standards. Understanding the key statutory provisions and how they have evolved could help patients, researchers, and advocates make more informed comments on the bill and future health care legislation.