Subscribe   RSS Contact Us

Coalition Calls for Substantial Revisions to Sunshine Act Proposed Rules

Feb. 16, 2012 – Further notice and comment are necessary for the implementation of Section 6002 of the Affordable Care ... read more

Refuting Inaccurate CER Results Is “Right” of Drug Sponsors, Temple Says

Feb. 13, 2012 – Dr. Robert Temple, the unofficial dean of drugs at the FDA, recently addressed one of the ... read more

Digital Health Coalition Issues Guiding Principles and Best Practices to Help Lead Way on Robust Use of Social Media by Medicine Companies

Feb. 7, 2012 – Responding to patient and professional calls for more industry participation in the Internet and social media, ... read more

Drug Facts Literature Review: Call for Comments

Feb. 3, 2012 – There are just 10 days left to comment on an FDA draft report that explores the ... read more

House Health Subcommittee PDUFA V Hearing Yields Little Talk of Marketing – For Now

Feb. 2, 2012 – More than four hours of testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health ... read more

Digital Advertising Alliance Launches Consumer Education Campaign

Jan. 27, 2012 – The Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) last week launched its “Your AdChoices” public education campaign to inform ... read more

MMM: CME Video Addresses Conflict of Interest

Jan. 26, 2012 – Avoiding conflict of interest in continuing medical education (CME) may seem like a daunting task, but ... read more

Does Novo Nordisk’s Victoza + Paula Deen = Recipe for Success?

Jan. 20, 2012 – Common sense should tell people that some of celebrity chef Paula Deen’s infamously unhealthy dishes – ... read more

Sunshine or Rain?

By Jack E. Angel, Education Foundation Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare Communication Jan. 17, 2012 – The Affordable Care Act ... read more

MMM Features Kamp’s Call for Industry Leadership on Off-label, Online Communications

 Jan. 6, 2012 — This article, written by Coalition for Healthcare Communication Executive Director John Kamp, was featured in the ... read more

OPDP to Industry: Voluntary Compliance Efforts in New Year Can Prevent Same Old Violations

Jan. 6, 2011 – As the pharmaceutical industry begins 2012, the FDA’s Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) recommends that ... read more

FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Unsolicited Off-label Info Requests, Addresses both Professional and Internet Media

Jan. 2, 2012 – In the waning days of 2011, the FDA released a significant draft guidance on company responses to ... read more

Finally, CMS Issues Sunshine Act Proposed Rule and Resets Compliance Deadlines

Dec. 15, 2011 – The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued its long-awaited Proposed Rule for implementing the Physician ... read more

MMM Previews Pharma Debates in DC: Prepare for a Wild Ride in 2012

Dec. 12, 2011 — Facing a need to decrease spending and boost revenues, the federal government will continue to target ... read more

Government, Industry and Educators Are Called to Action on a Looming Health Crisis

  By Jack E. Angel, Education Foundation Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare Communication Nov. 14, 2011 — In response to ... read more

FDA Approval Report Contains Good News for Patients and Industry

  By John Kamp, Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare Communication – Nov. 7, 2011 – Until the research labs and ... read more

RPM Report: Pandora’s Box Officially Open as New Legal Challenges to FDA’s Off-label Restrictions Emerge

Oct. 24, 2011 – After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down speaker- and content-based restrictions in Sorrell v. IMS Health, ... read more

Par Pharma Case Asserts That First Amendment Protects Truthful Off-label Speech

Oct. 18, 2011 – A case filed by Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. against the FDA seeks to preserve Par’s First Amendment ... read more

Kamp on the Sunshine Act: Collaboration Key to Patient Care

Dec. 14, 2011 — UPDATE — CMS has published the proposed rules enforcing the Sunshine provisions of the Affordable Care ... read more

Fall 2011 Update: Four Things Industry Should Know

  By John Kamp, Coalition for Healthcare Communication Executive Director Sept. 13, 2011 — Debates over health care and related ... read more

Experts Weigh In on Implications of Sorrell Decision

Aug. 1, 2011 — The recent Supreme Court decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. is earning robust commentary in ... read more

Academic Detailing and Health Plan Communications: Is the Playing Field Level?

By Kenneth P. Berkowitz, Esq. July 21, 2011 — Why does the government fail to apply current regulatory requirements and ... read more

Sorrell v. IMS: What Marketing Professionals Need to Know

By John Kamp, Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare Communication July 18, 2011 — For those who have not read the ... read more

Kamp Column: Industry Must Embrace Internet and Social Media or Become Irrelevant in Many Health Conversations

By John Kamp, Executive Director, Coalition for Healthcare Communication June 29, 2011 — Yesterday I had the pleasure of moderating ... read more

PhRMA Survey Shows That Physicians Value Industry Communication

March 31, 2011 — At a time when interaction between biopharmaceutical companies and physicians is under increased scrutiny, a recent ... read more

Previous Next

FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Unsolicited Off-label Info Requests, Addresses both Professional and Internet Media

Jan. 2, 2012 – In the waning days of 2011, the FDA released a significant draft guidance on company responses to unsolicited requests for off-label information by healthcare professionals and consumers.  Although the FDA explicitly recognized the value of company-provided information, the draft guidance  adhered to its traditional policy stance strickly limiting such answers to the individual making the request and precluding public dissemination.

In effect, the FDA banned all public responses to off-label questions in traditional and Internet-based media where the company has any control of content.

“The FDA guidance is clear and authoritative, so will enable more and better communication with professionals and patients.  Indeed, it may clear the way for many companies to more confidently provide data to doctors and patients. It’s required New Year reading for agencies, publishers and media intent on helping companies provide better access to life-saving data. ” said John Kamp, Executive Director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication.

“It’s a small step forward that enables companies to more aggressively inform doctors and patients, but much still needs to be done. The draft guidance simply does not go far enough to foster optimum information dissemination or to address the significant First Amendment issues highlighted by last year’s Supreme Court decision in IMS v. Sorrell,” Kamp said.

“The challenge for industry in 2012 will be to use this guidance aggressively and responsibly while working with the FDA to support much larger steps forward to advance the public health,” he continued. “The Coalition is coordinating with industry partners to respond to this draft guidance and other comments to encourage FDA to enable improved improved information dissemination to healthcare professionals and the public.”

Draft Guidance Basics

The FDA’s Draft Guidance, “Responding to Unsolicited Requests for Off-Label Information About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices,” was issued Dec. 27, 2011. The draft begins  by describing FDA’s  legal framework for restrictioning off-label speech, but quicly acknowledges that  “these off-label uses or treatment regimens may be important therapeutic options and may even constitute a medically recognized standard of care.”

In light of the growth of the Internet as a significant source of information for patients and healthcare professionals, the FDA’s draft guidance was developed for firms “wishing to respond to unsolicited requests for off-label information, including both requests made directly and privately to firms and requests made in public forums, including through emerging electronic media.”

In the draft guidance, the FDA describes the difference between unsolicited and solicited requests for information and breaks down its recommendations into two sections – one for non-public unsolicited requests and one for public unsolicited requests.

Unsolicited Non-public Requests

In the non-public request section, the agency makes seven recommendations about responding to unsolicited requests:

(1)   The response should be provided only to the individual making the request “as a private, one-on-one communication.”

(2)   Response information should “be tailored to answer only the specific question(s) asked.” The agency states that if the request is broad, it is the company’s responsibility to “appropriately narrow the question.”

(3)   Response information should “be truthful, non-misleading, accurate, and balanced.”

(4)   Response information should “be scientific in nature” and not be “promotional in tone or presentation” or be distributed along with any promotional material or information.

(5)   Response information should be generated “by medical or scientific personnel independent from sales or marketing departments.” The agency further recommends that sales and marketing personnel have “no input on the content of responses to unsolicited questions or requests for off-label information.”

(6)   Response information should be accompanied by a copy of FDA-required labeling, a prominent statement notifying the response recipient that that FDA has not approved or cleared the product for the off-label use(s), a prominent statement disclosing the approved or cleared indications for the product, a prominent statement providing all safety information and any boxed warnings, and a complete list of references for all of the information disseminated in the response.

(7)   Firms are directed to maintain records regarding the nature of the information requests (e.g., name, address and affiliation of requestor), the information provided to the requestor and any follow-up inquiries or questions from the requestor.

Unsolicited Public Requests

Responding to unsolicited public requests for off-label information calls for a different approach, according to the agency, which has concerns that “firms may post detailed public online responses to questions about off-label uses of their products in such a way that they are communicating unapproved or uncleared use information … to individuals who have not requested such information.” Additionally, the FDA has concerns “about the enduring nature of detailed public online responses to off-label questions because specific drug or device information may become outdated.”

Accordingly the agency recommends that firms respond only when the request pertains specifically to its own named product, that the response be limited to providing the firm’s contact information and not include any off-label information, that representatives who provide public responses clearly disclose their involvement with a particular firm, and that public responses not be promotional in nature or tone.

Firms also are advised in the draft guidance to include a mechanism for providing current FDA-required labeling, to not include any promotional material or links to any other information, such as product Web sites, product promotional Web sites, firm Web sites or third-party Web sites, and that the Web address where viewers are directed to obtain product labeling information itself not be promotional (e.g., www.bestcancercure.com).

Enforcement Implications

The agency states that if a company follows the recommendations in the draft guidance for responding to unsolicited requests, “FDA does not intend to use such responses as evidence of the firm’s intent that the product be used for an unapproved or uncleared use.” The FDA further states that alternative approaches outside of these recommendations “would not constitute a per se violation of the law, but could potentially be introduced as evidence of a new intended use.”

Comments and suggestion on the draft guidance should be submitted within 90 days of the guidance issue date.