Source: http://druganddevicelaw.blogspot.com/2013/02/just-how-illegal-is-off-label-promotion.html
Timestamp: 2014-10-26 02:57:34
Document Index: 305060769

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§312', '§331', '§352', '§201', '§801', '§201', '§801']

Drug and Device Law: Just How "Illegal" Is Off-Label Promotion?
Just How "Illegal" Is Off-Label Promotion?
Until recently it’s simply been accepted that the
FDA administratively banned off-label promotion – no ifs, ands, or buts. Bexis’ book used to read: “It is illegal, however, for a manufacturer
of a prescription medical product to promote an off-label use.” §4.01[4] at p. 4.01-45. We sort of took that much, at least, for
granted – even though we vociferously dissented, on First Amendment grounds,
from this “ban” applying to truthful promotion, as we’ve done in most of our
posts under our “First Amendment” blog topic.
Not so fast. As Einstein demonstrated, sometimes even the most seemingly established propositions are questionable.
In fact, as we learned in Caronia, the FDA’s
path to prosecution of off-label promotion is anything but direct and certain. United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149,
160 (2d Cir. 2012). In actuality, “[t]he
FDCA and its accompanying regulations do
not expressly prohibit the ‘promotion’ or ‘marketing’ of drugs for
off-label use.” Id. (emphasis
added). Indeed, for all the frequency
with which “promotion” gets bandied about, there isn’t even a definition of the
term “promote” or “promotion” in either the FDCA or in FDA regulations. Rather, the Agency seems to be hiding the
ball with regulatory statements – notably in the investigational drug context –
that “[t]his provision [barring but not defining “promotion”] is not intended
to restrict the full exchange of scientific information concerning the drug,
including dissemination of scientific findings in scientific or lay media.” 21 C.F.R. §312.7(a).
That’s a load of malarkey. Barring “full exchange of scientific
information” is precisely what the FDA’s been doing with its off-label
promotion stance for decades.
But neither is that stance straight
forward. Rather, to understand FDA’s position
that off-label promotion (whatever that is) is illegal, requires meandering
through several different statutory and regulatory provisions – none of which
even specifically mentions off-label use. We start with the FDCA’s general prohibition against the “misbranding”
of drugs and devices. 21 U.S.C. §331(a). FDA approved products are “misbranded” if (among
other things) their labeling does not bear “adequate directions for use.” 321 U.S.C. §352(f). However, “adequate directions for use” are
limited by regulation to a product’s “intended use.” 21 C.F.R. §201.5 (drugs); 21 C.F.R. §801.5
(medical devices). The FDA’s definition
of “intended use” (which hasn’t been updated in 50 years) in turn provides that
“intended use” “may change” if “the article is . . . offered and used
for a purpose for which it is n[ot] labeled.” Id. If that happens, such
as through off-label promotion, the product then lacks the required “adequate
directions for use” because the agency deems the “intended use” to have changed. 21 C.F.R. §201.128 (drugs); 21 C.F.R. §801.4
(medical devices). Thus, going back to
the beginning of the process, with a different “intended use” the product no
longer has the right “adequate directions for use” and is therefore
“misbranded.”
Got that? The federal government has made billions of dollars in recent years
through fines for off-label promotion, all because of this kludgy
administrative tour de farce.
That’s where the Second Circuit stepped in in Caronia. Because neither the FDCA nor the FDA’s
regulations explicitly bans off-label promotion, the court was able to salvage
their constitutionality under the First Amendment by construing this thicket,
as a whole, as not banning truthful speech:
[T]he FDCA and FDA regulations reference “promotion”
only as evidence of a drug’s intended use. Thus, under the principle of constitutional
avoidance, explained infra, we construe the FDCA as not criminalizing the
simple promotion of a drug’s off-label use because such a construction would
raise First Amendment concerns.
703 F.3d at 160. If the court had not been able to finesse the issue in this way,
presumably, it would have declared the whole kit and kaboodle unconstitutional,
given the First Amendment analysis that followed – which we won’t repeat since
we covered that thoroughly here and here. In light of Caronia, it’s important for the
defense bar to watch what it says, since the conventional wisdom has been
overturned (to our clients’ great potential benefit) at least in the Second
Circuit. We should now be taking the
position, consistent with Caronia, that there in fact is no current, express
federal law or federal regulation that prohibits off-label promotion. At most, there is a non-binding FDA Guidance
Document, and there previously were safe-harbor-related regulations that have
since sunsetted and thus are no longer in effect. But no federal law or regulation that
expressly prohibits off-label promotion is operative at the moment - only the FDA's Steinfelt to Tinker to Evers to Chance regulatory interpretation.
Why do we care? Two reasons: (1) in preemption
cases, this absence of an express federal prohibition means that no federal
requirement is violated by off-label promotion, and thus there is no “parallel”
claim that can survive express preemption; and (2) in the context of negligence
per se, state law is universal that (a) “violation” of guidance documents, or
other items not carrying the force of law, cannot serve as a basis for the
imposition of civil liability, and (b) likewise, claimed violations of vague and imprecise
regulations cannot support liability.
So let’s get this right. The Caronia regulatory rationale –
largely separate from the First Amendment questions that produced it − has the
potential to be a powerful addition to the defense armamentarium in cases
involving off-label use. Thus, repeat
after the Second Circuit: “[t]he FDCA
and its accompanying regulations do
not expressly prohibit the ‘promotion’ or ‘marketing’ of drugs [and
medical devices] for off-label use.”
Fifth Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of Non-Eco...
The Gray View on Device Preemption
A Short and Sweet Preemption Decision (and Continu...
A Solid Decison Dismissing Third Party Payer Claim...
NJLRA CLE on Daubert - March 1, 2013
A One-Two Punch in the Aredia/Zometa Litigation
Accutane MDL Court Dismisses 40 Cases for Plaintif...
Denture Cream Plaintiffs Want to Eat Their Cake an...
The Fifth Circuit Says No: No “Duty of Additional ...
The Latest On Aredia/Zometa
Context and Choice: E.D. Pa. Grants Summary Judgm...
How to Apply Preemption to Off-Label Claims: Capli...
FInally, A Decent Week
An Off-Label Conundrum
The Learned Intermediary Doctrine Applied Learnedl...
Second Circuit - Fosamax Plaintiff's Expert Testim...
Spherical Error Revisited