Consider Exploring EOP2 Loophole: Attorney
Attorney Josephine Torrente (Hyman, Phelps & McNamara) says FDA has drug sponsors at a disadvantage by refusing to hear appeals from an end-of-phase 2 (EOP2) disagreement over Phase 3 study parameters. Writing in her firm’s FDA Law Blog, Torrente says in 2015 the agency revised its 15-year-old formal dispute resolution request (FDRR) guidance to exclude EOP2 disagreements, such as dose, eligibility criteria, and endpoints, from the FDRR process.
The agency’s position, Torrente writes, is that advice communicated in meeting minutes and other correspondence is not a regulatory action and sponsors are not required to follow the advice.
“The practical truth, however, is that failure to follow the division’s recommendations for Phase 3 design puts the program at significant risk of failure even if the Phase 3 study is successful,” she says.
Torrente says that while the agency shows no signs of revising its policy, companies may benefit from considering a loophole that allows a special protocol assessment (SPA) no agreement letter to be appealed.
“While conventional wisdom says that one is most likely to submit a SPA if it is possible to achieve concurrence with FDA on the adequacy of study design,” Torrente writes, “who’s to say that one can’t submit a SPA request in order to confirm a lack of such concurrence, thereby opening up the route to FDRR.” She says that while this approach could delay the start of Phase 3 by 4-5 months, it could accelerate, or make possible, time to ultimate drug approval.