what we do page
what we do page
Quisque consequat ac enim ut aliquam. Etiam laoreet, tellus eu bibendum elementum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nulla scelerisque, massa eu imperdiet suscipit, augue est sollicitudin nunc.
Pellentesque lacinia diam non feugiat egestas. Quisque consequat ac enim ut aliquam. Etiam laoreet, tellus eu bibendum elementum, odio ex scelerisque dolor, non ornare lectus mi et dui. Integer rhoncus nulla vitae sem placerat cursus. Quisque venenatis lectus at tempus tincidunt. Suspendisse ullamcorper tincidunt eros, sed auctor justo ultricies in….
Last week, FDA and Amarin Corporation reached a negotiated settlement of a legal case concerning off-label promotion for use of a drug for an unapproved indication. The negotiation established parameters for how Amarin and the FDA will operationalize the Court’s finding that the FDA cannot stop a company from providing truthful and non-misleading information about unapproved new indications of a drug. What the Court decision and the negotiated settlement mean for the future of off-label new use promotion beyond Amarin will become clear over time. What this case prompts for me is perhaps the bigger question – and that is, how should FDA and life science companies consider the larger set of data issues that sit at the heart of our healthcare system’s transition from volume to value?
Following the results of the Amarin legal judgment, there has been speculation that the ability to promote unapproved, “off-label” claims for prescription drugs will dramatically change. Yet, there are specific reasons why the Amarin First Amendment legal case succeeded and hundreds, if not thousands, of other cases have failed. While the Amarin judgment has set a precedent, it should not have a dramatic change on promotional claim requirements in pharma marketing – meaning that companies do not have First Amendment protection for statements that are untruthful and misleading. It’s not expected that the FDA will diminish the criteria needed to support substantial evidence of efficacy. Instead they will continue to vigorously protect public health and the communication of accurate, science-based information.