Economic Impacts of the Generic Drug User Fee Act Fee Structure.

BACKGROUND: A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Generic Drug User system, Generic Drug User Fee Amendment of 2012 (GDUFA), started October 1, 2012, and has been in place for over 3 years. There is controversy about the GDUFA fee structure but no analysis of GDUFA data that we could find. OBJECTIVE: To look at the economic impact of the GDUFA fee structure. METHODS: We compared the structure of GDUFA with that of other FDA Human Drug User fees. We then, using FDA-published information, analyzed where GDUFA facility and Drug Master File fees are coming from. We used the Orange Book to identify the sponsors of all approved Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and the S&P Capital IQ database to find the ultimate parent companies of sponsors of approved ANDAs. RESULTS: The key differences between the previous structure for Human Drug User fees and the GDUFA are as follows: GDUFA has no approved product fee and no first-time or small business fee exemptions and GDUFA charges facility fees from the time of filing and charges a foreign facility levy. Most GDUFA fees are paid by or on behalf of foreign entities. The top 10 companies hold nearly 50% of all approved ANDAs but pay about 14% of GDUFA facility fees. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the regressive nature of the GDUFA fee structure penalizes small, new, and foreign firms while benefiting the large established firms. A progressive fee structure in line with other human drug user fees is needed to ensure a healthy generic drug industry.

Factors to consider in developing individual pharmaceutical product quality risk profiles useful to government procurement agencies.

Governments that procure pharmaceutical products from an Essential Medicine List (EML) bear special responsibility for the quality of these products. In this article we examine the possibility of developing a pharmaceutical product quality risk assessment scheme for use by government procurement officials. We use the Chinese EML as a basis, and US recall data is examined as it is publically available.This is justified as the article is only concerned with inherent product quality risks. After establishing a link between Chinese essential medicines and those available in the US, we examine US recall data to separate product specific recalls. We conclude that, in addition to existing manufacturing based risks, there are two other product specific risks that stand out from all others, degradation and dissolution failure. Methodology for relative product risk for degradation is needed to be developed and further work is required to better understand dissolution failures which largely occur with modified-release solid oral products. We conclude that a product specific quality risk profile would be enhanced by including a risk assessment for degradation for all products, and in the case of solid oral products, dissolution.

The use of stratefied sampling of blend and dosage units to demonstrate adequacy of mix for powder blends.

In response to concerns expressed by applicants regarding inconsistent policies in establishing blend uniformity acceptance criteria to demonstrate adequacy of mix, the FDA Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) issued the draft document Guidance for Industry, ANDAs: Blend Uniformity Analysis (August 1999). Both generic and innovator pharmaceutical companies raised a number of concerns following the publication of this document. As a result, the Product Quality Research Institute (PQRI) Blend Uniformity Working Group (BUWG) was established in February 2000. One of the primary goals of this group was to draft a scientifically based alternative to the OGD document. The resulting recommendation addresses both FDA and industry concerns by substantially enhancing product quality assurance without increasing regulatory burden. The PQRI BUWG recommends that these blend and dosage unit uniformity requirements be administered uniformly throughout the industry. PQRI submitted the following recommendation to the FDA on December 31, 2002, providing the Agency with an alternative strategy to consider when drafting future regulatory policy to assess blend and dosage unit uniformity.