‘Anemic’ FDA Ad Enforcement Seen
An analysis of CDER Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) enforcement actions in 2020 by Eye on FDA found the same pace as in recent years, what the online publication calls “anemic levels of enforcement.” The post says the six regulatory letters were exclusively aimed at smaller, less experienced companies. “Whether that is by design, or by virtue of the fact that they are more prone to regulatory error, is not clear,” it says.
Of the six letters sent, five were Warning Letters and one was a Notice of Violation (Untitled Letter). Five of the letters involved products with Boxed Warnings, while four of them involved digital communications. Two of the letters cited traditional direct-to-consumer ads — one on television and one on radio.
The six letters contained 13 violations — six for omitted or limited risk information, one for an unsubstantiated claim, two for broadening an indication, one for unapproved use, and three in the “other” category, which included failing to use the established name in the promotion. Risk omission or minimization was an element in all of the letters, the post says.
Eye on FDA reports that OPDP leadership appears to be prioritizing reviewing launch materials for new drugs and focusing on enforcement for specific categories where there is a high risk, such as pain medications, and situations where there is a greater risk as represented by the presence of a Boxed Warning.