Comments on Therapeutic Equivalence Draft Guidance
The Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM) says it appreciates FDA’s efforts in providing a draft guidance on therapeutic equivalence (TE) evaluations and the assignment of TE codes. The AAM says its members have suggestions for how the draft guidance can provide even more transparency into FDA’s TE evaluations and improve the processes for making these determinations to bring more competition to the market and provide greater patient access to therapeutically equivalent generic drugs. Its comments address (1) assigning TE ratings to products approved in a 505(b)(2) application; (2) changing or removing TE ratings; and (3) TE ratings based on packaging.
In its comments, Apotex recommends that FDA “align itself with the more extensive definitions of TE that the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada have undertaken, within the spirit of international harmonization for generally-aligned regulatory bodies, for global convergence, and to encourage more competition for the same active pharmaceutical products with therapeutic equivalence, which in turn will result in lower prices for customers, payors, and government purchasers.”
Amicus Therapeutics raises a specific question about a potential conflict between a carve-out in the label of an A-rated generic and the regulatory definition of therapeutic equivalence. “We believe this conflict is particularly likely if a generic label omits some portion of the reference-listed drug’s sole information because it is protected by a patent,” Amicus says.
Teva highlights points in the draft that could be improved to ensure even greater patient access to TE-rated generic alternatives. It says FDA should:
- not remove TE ratings from the Orange Book once they are assigned, even if a drug becomes single-source;
- explain when and for what reason it would revise a TE rating from AB to BX;
- assign TE ratings for eligible 505(b)(2) products as part of the review process and should not require a citizen petition to obtain a TE rating for those products; and
- be explicit about what aspects of packaging would affect a TE rating for generic combination products.
Cipla provided several specific comments.