Standardizing and Evaluating Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Comments, 30313-30317 [2013-12124]
Download as PDF
30313
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Notices
correspondence to FDA the
manufacturer should identify the
product code and classification as well
as reference to the original 510(k) when
this is available.
FDA estimates the burden of this
collection of information as follows:
TABLE 1—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1
Activity
Number of
respondents
Number of
responses per
respondent
Total annual
responses
Average
burden per
response
Total hours
Operating and
maintenance
costs
Request for CLIA categorization ..............
60
15
900
1
900
$46,800
The number of respondents is
approximately 60. On average, each
respondent will request categorizations
(independent of a 510(k) or PMA) 15
times per year. The cost, not including
personnel, is estimated at $52 per hour
(52 × 900), totaling $46,800. This
includes the cost of copying and mailing
copies of package inserts and a cover
letter, which includes a statement of the
reason for the request and reference to
the original 510(k) numbers, including
regulation numbers and product codes.
The burden hours are based on FDA
familiarity with the types of
documentation typically included in a
sponsor’s categorization requests, and
costs for basic office supplies (e.g.
paper).
commitments, FDA will also seek to
develop evidence-based methodologies
for assessing the effectiveness of REMS.
To obtain input from stakeholders
about REMS standardization and
evaluation, FDA will hold a public
meeting to give stakeholders, including
health care providers, prescribers,
patients, pharmacists, distributors, drug
manufacturers, vendors, researchers,
standards development organizations,
and the public an opportunity to
provide input on ways to standardize
and assess REMS.
DATES: The meeting will be held on July
25 and 26, 2013, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. Individuals who wish to present at
the meeting must register by July 10,
2013. See section IV of this document
for information on how to register to
speak at the meeting.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held at FDA’s White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building
31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Submit electronic comments to https://
www.regulations.gov. Submit written
comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify
each set of comments with the
corresponding docket number for the
public meeting as follows: ‘‘Docket No.
FDA–2013–N–0502, ‘‘Standardization
and Evaluation of Risk Evaluation and
Mitigation Strategies, Public Meeting.’’
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Kroetsch, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192,
Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–
3842, FAX: 301–847–8443, email:
REMS_Standardization@fda.hhs.gov.
Dated: May 15, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–12099 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0502]
Standardizing and Evaluating Risk
Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies;
Notice of Public Meeting; Request for
Comments
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
Notice of public meeting;
request for comments.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing a
2-day public meeting to obtain input on
issues and challenges associated with
the standardization and assessment of
risk evaluation and mitigation strategies
(REMS) for drug and biological
products. As part of the reauthorization
of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA), FDA has committed to
standardizing REMS to better integrate
them into, and reduce their burden to,
the existing and evolving health care
system. As part of the PDUFA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
I. Background
This meeting builds upon prior
stakeholder feedback on and input into
the design, implementation, and
assessment of REMS. In July 2010, FDA
held a public meeting to obtain input on
issues associated with the development
and implementation of REMS. In June
2012, FDA held a public workshop to
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
discuss survey methodologies and
instruments that can be used to evaluate
patients’ and health care providers’
knowledge about the risks of drugs
marketed with an approved REMS. In
addition, the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of
2007 (Pub. L. 110–85) requires FDA to
bring, at least annually, one or more
drugs with REMS with elements to
assure safe use (ETASU) before the Drug
Safety and Risk Management Advisory
Committee. FDA also regularly
discusses both pre- and postapproval
REMS with ETASUs with various FDA
advisory committees in the context of
specific applications.
This meeting also builds on FDA’s
internal efforts to improve the design,
implementation and assessment of
REMS. In 2011, FDA created the REMS
Integration Initiative, designed to
evaluate and improve its
implementation of REMS authorities.
More information about the REMS
Integration Initiative can be found at
(https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/
UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/
ucm350852.htm). As part of this effort,
FDA seeks to improve future REMS
assessments and incorporate the latest
methodologies in the evolving science
of risk management. In its February
2013 report, ‘‘FDA Lacks
Comprehensive Data to Determine
Whether Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategies Improve Drug Safety,’’ the
Department of Health and Human
Services Office of the Inspector General
affirmed the need to identify and
implement reliable methods to assess
the effectiveness of REMS and REMS
components. This report is available at
https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-0411-00510.pdf.
This public meeting is intended to
meet performance goals included in the
fifth reauthorization of the Prescription
Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA V). This
reauthorization, part of the Food and
Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112–
144) signed by the President on July 9,
2012, includes a number of performance
goals and procedures that are
documented in the PDUFA V
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
30314
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Notices
Commitment Letter. (See ‘‘PDUFA
Reauthorization Performance Goals and
Procedures Fiscal Years 2013 Through
2017,’’ which is available at https://
www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/
userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/
ucm270412.pdf.)
FDA developed the performance goals
and procedures for PDUFA V in
consultation with drug industry
representatives, patient and consumer
advocates, health care professionals,
and other public stakeholders from July
2010 through May 2011. Title XI of the
letter, ‘‘Enhancement and
Modernization of the FDA Drug Safety
System,’’ states that FDA user fees will
be used to enhance REMS by measuring
the effectiveness of REMS and
evaluating, with stakeholder input,
appropriate ways to better integrate
them into the existing and evolving
health care system. (See ‘‘PDUFA
Reauthorization Performance Goals and
Procedures Fiscal Years 2013 through
2017’’ at https://www.fda.gov/
downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/
PrescriptionDrugUserFee/
UCM270412.pdf).
Toward that end, the PDUFA V
Commitment Letter identified a number
of specific goals, including holding one
or more public meetings to explore
strategies to standardize REMS and
reduce the burden of implementing
REMS on practitioners, patients, and
others in various health care settings
and on methodologies for assessing
whether REMS are mitigating the risks
they purport to mitigate and for
assessing the effectiveness and impact
of REMS, including methods for
assessing the effect on patient access,
individual practitioners, and the overall
burden on the health care delivery
system. FDA also committed to issuing
a report of its findings regarding
standardizing REMS; the report will
identify priority projects in four areas
(pharmacy systems, prescriber
education, providing benefit/risk
information to patients, and practice
settings). FDA also committed to issuing
guidance on methodologies for assessing
REMS, specifically, methodologies for
determining whether a specific REMS
with ETASU is commensurate with the
specific serious risk listed in the
labeling of the drug and considering the
observed risk, not unduly burdensome
on patient access to the drug. For details
on specific FDA commitments, see the
PDUFA Reauthorization Performance
Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2013
Through 2017, Section XI,
‘‘Enhancement and Modernization of
the FDA Drug Safety System,’’ Parts A2,
A3, which is available at https://
www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/
ucm270412.pdf.
collaboration with stakeholders and
outside experts.
II. Purpose and Scope of Meeting
III. Scope of Public Input Requested
FDA is particularly interested in
obtaining information and public
comment on the following areas:
The purpose of this public meeting is
to obtain feedback from stakeholders on:
(1) Issues and challenges associated
with standardizing and assessing REMS
for drug and biological products and (2)
identifying potential projects that will
help standardize REMS and integrate
them into the health care delivery
system. FDA is seeking information and
comments from a broad range of
stakeholders, including interested
health care providers, prescribers,
patients, pharmacists, distributors, drug
manufacturers, vendors, researchers,
standards development organizations,
and the public.
To promote greater standardization
and improved assessment of REMS,
FDA is seeking feedback on how to
reduce any unnecessary variation in
REMS and, in the process, to make
REMS elements and associated tools
less burdensome to stakeholders, better
integrated into the health care system,
more effective, and easier to assess. FDA
recognizes that the REMS elements and
associated tools found in existing REMS
programs have varied. In some cases,
these variations are appropriate, because
REMS are designed to address specific
risks posed by particular drugs in a
wide range of patient populations and
health care settings. However, FDA may
be able to establish standards to reduce
unnecessary variation and to make
REMS more predictable and simpler to
understand, implement, and measure.
The establishment of standards also
presents the opportunity to improve
upon the design of REMS elements and
associated tools and assessment
methodologies in the future.
After this meeting, FDA will issue a
report to the public that identifies REMS
standardization projects in the four
areas specified in the PDUFA V
commitment letter: Prescriber
education, pharmacy systems, practice
settings, and providing benefit/risk
information to patients. FDA welcomes
stakeholder input to help identify highquality projects that could offer FDA
and stakeholders the opportunity to
develop, test, and implement new
approaches to standardizing REMS and
integrating them into the health care
system. The scope of such projects
might include research studies,
demonstration projects, and the
development of new REMS tools using,
for example, emerging information
technologies or existing controls in the
health care system. These projects might
be carried out by FDA alone or in
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
A. Prescriber-Directed REMS Tools
REMS programs use a number of tools
to educate prescribers and/or ensure
that they carry out REMS requirements,
including screening, monitoring, and
counseling patients. These tools have
included risk communications to
prescribers, prescriber training, and
instruments to help prescribers
prescribe the drug safely—for example,
counseling guides and checklists.
1. Many REMS with elements to
assure safe use provide for prescriber
training on the risks of the drug and
how to use the drug safely. In some
REMS, the completion of this training is
required before a person can become a
certified prescriber of the drug.
Sponsors provide REMS training in a
variety of formats, including in-person,
online, and through printed materials.
FDA is interested in input on which
formats and training approaches are
most effective for prescriber training;
how frequently prescribers should be
asked to take REMS training and
whether a single training is sufficient;
what additional tools could be used to
reinforce what prescribers learn during
the training and help them apply what
they have learned; and how REMS
training could be incorporated into
continuing medical education programs.
2. Prescriber training often includes
knowledge assessments that prescribers
must successfully complete as part of
the training. These knowledge
assessments, which typically take the
form of multiple-choice questions, are
designed to ensure that the prescriber
understands the training material; they
also serve to reinforce key messages
from the training. (Knowledge
assessments should not be confused
with the surveys of knowledge that drug
manufacturers may conduct as part of
their REMS assessments.) FDA is
interested in input on when knowledge
assessments should be included in
REMS and whether they should be
included in all REMS that include
prescriber training. In addition, FDA
requests input on how knowledge
assessments can be designed to ensure
accurate measurement of prescribers’
knowledge and how knowledge
assessments can be designed to measure
or predict prescribers’ ability to apply
what they have learned in their practice.
3. Once prescribers have met all
requirements for certification under the
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Notices
REMS (e.g., completed training), they
generally must complete an enrollment
form to be recognized as certified and
able to prescribe the drug. Generally, by
completing, signing, and submitting the
enrollment form, prescribers
acknowledge their understanding of the
drug’s risks and the REMS
requirements. In some REMS, the
enrollment form also is used to share
information about the risks of the drug
and how to use the drug safely. FDA is
interested in stakeholder input on
whether the information and agreements
included in current REMS prescriber
enrollment forms are presented in a way
that is easy for prescribers to
understand. Also, what, if anything,
should be done to standardize, simplify,
or streamline prescriber enrollment
forms and the overall prescriber
enrollment process?
4. What else can be done to improve
the effectiveness of existing prescriberdirected REMS tools, to standardize
them, to reduce their burden, and/or to
better integrate them into the health care
delivery system?
5. What tools and technologies not
currently used in REMS could be
incorporated into REMS to help educate
prescribers and ensure that they carry
out REMS requirements? What evidence
exists to support the effectiveness of
these tools and technologies?
6. What projects could be carried out
to standardize the provision of
prescriber education in REMS?
7. What projects could be carried out
to better integrate REMS into prescriber
practice settings?
8. What methodologies exist or might
be developed to assess the effectiveness
of prescriber-directed REMS tools, the
tools’ burden on the health care delivery
system, and the effect of these tools on
patient access?
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. Patient-Directed REMS Tools
REMS programs may use a number of
tools to educate and counsel patients,
provide patients with information about
the risks of the drug, and help to ensure
that patients use the drug safely. These
tools may include patient enrollment in
the REMS, patient monitoring,
counseling by health care professionals,
Medication Guides, and other patientdirected educational materials.
1. REMS use a range of written
materials to help educate and counsel
patients, including Medication Guides.
In some cases, health care practitioners
give these materials to patients to read
on their own, and in other cases health
care providers are asked to review these
materials with patients and use them in
patient counseling.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
2. In REMS that include patient
education, what would make written
educational materials more effective?
What other materials, tools, and
technologies, (e.g., reference materials,
checklists, smartphone applications)
might be used to help educate patients
and reinforce what they have learned?
3. How could the provision of
information to patients be standardized,
and what are the most efficient ways of
providing information to patients given
the variety of patient information needs
and learning styles?
4. In many REMS, patients receive
counseling that may include a
discussion of the benefits and risks of
the drug as well as instructions on how
to use the drug safely. In the majority of
such REMS, prescribers are called upon
to counsel patients, but other health
care practitioners, including
pharmacists and nurses, may also play
a role in counseling patients. What are
ways to improve current REMS
approach to counseling patients? How
should the timing and frequency of
patient counseling be determined?
Under what circumstances is it
appropriate for prescribers to provide
patient counseling in a REMS, when
should other providers play a role in
counseling patients in a REMS, and how
can patient counseling in REMS be
integrated into pharmacists’ existing
medication therapy management
practices?
5. Many REMS with elements to
assure safe use include prescriberpatient agreements. These agreements
are used to document that an informed
discussion of the drug’s benefits and
risks took place and that the patient
understood the risks. Prescriber-patient
agreements may also support patient
counseling by providing information for
prescribers to review with patients.
Some REMS require that these
agreements be signed by the prescriber
and patient and submitted to the drug
manufacturer. Are the information and
agreements included in prescriberpatient agreements presented in a way
that is easy for patients to understand
and act upon? What, if anything, should
be done to standardize, simplify, or
streamline prescriber-patient agreement
forms and the overall agreement
process?
6. What else can be done to improve
the effectiveness of existing patientdirected tools, to standardize them, to
reduce their burden, and/or to better
integrate them into the existing and
evolving health care delivery system?
7. What tools and technologies not
currently used in REMS could be
incorporated into REMS to help counsel
patients, to provide them with
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30315
information on the risks of the drug, and
to ensure that they use the drug safely?
What evidence exists to support the
effectiveness of these tools and
technologies?
8. What projects could be carried out
to standardize the provision of benefitrisk information to patients?
9. What methodologies exist or might
be developed to assess the effectiveness
of patient-directed REMS tools, the
tools’ burden on the health care delivery
system, and the effect of these tools on
patient access?
C. REMS Tools in Drug Dispensing
Settings
Drug dispensing settings, such as
prescribers’ offices, hospitals,
pharmacies (e.g., specialty, retail, and
mail-order), integrated health care
delivery systems, and infusion centers,
often play a significant role in REMS.
This is a challenging area to address
because of the wide range of health care
settings involved and because
dispensers are frequently called upon to
coordinate care across a range of health
care settings and practitioners and to
reinforce the tools that have been used
by other health care practitioners.
Specific dispensing settings may be
required to obtain certification under a
REMS, and, like prescribers, the health
care practitioners who dispense a drug
(authorized dispensers) may be required
to complete training, counsel patients,
and provide patients with educational
materials, including Medication Guides.
In addition, dispensers may be required
to document that certain safe-use
conditions are met before dispensing
(e.g., by ordering/checking lab tests or
completing a form or checklist).
Many REMS with elements to assure
safe use require that specific health care
settings be certified to be able to
dispense the drug. To certify the health
care setting, REMS typically require a
representative of that health care setting
to agree that the health care setting will
meet all REMS requirements, including
the completion of any necessary
training.
1. Under what circumstances should
individual practitioners within a health
care setting (e.g., pharmacists, as
opposed to pharmacies) be certified,
instead of the health care setting? How
could this effectively be accomplished
while minimizing the burden on the
health care system?
2. In most REMS that include
dispenser certification, each dispensing
site is certified individually. Under
what circumstances would it be
appropriate to use a single certification
for a health care setting with multiple
dispensing sites such as a pharmacy
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
30316
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Notices
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
chain, an integrated health care system,
or a hospital system?
3. In what ways can the
implementation of REMS tools in
different dispensing settings be
standardized, and under what
circumstances might the
implementation approach need to vary
to accommodate the different types of
dispensing settings that can be part of a
REMS?
4. What obstacles have made it
difficult for authorized dispensers to
obtain drugs under existing REMS, and
how can these be overcome?
5. How can REMS be made more
compatible with existing systems for the
procurement and distribution of drugs?
How can REMS be integrated into any
future electronic track and trace
systems?
6. What else can be done to improve
the effectiveness of existing REMS tools
in drug dispensing settings, to
standardize them, to reduce their
burden, and/or to better integrate them
into the existing and evolving health
care delivery system?
7. What tools and technologies not
currently used in REMS could be
incorporated into REMS to help train
and certify authorized dispensers,
ensure that only certified dispensers can
obtain the drug, and ensure that any
safe-use conditions are met before a
drug is dispensed? What evidence exists
to support the effectiveness of these
tools and technologies?
8. What projects could be carried out
to integrate REMS tools into pharmacy
systems?
9. What projects could be carried out
to integrate REMS tools into other drug
dispensing settings, such as hospitals,
pharmacies, long-term care facilities,
and integrated health care delivery
systems?
10. What methodologies exist or
might be developed to assess the
effectiveness of REMS tools across the
range of dispensing settings, the tools’
burden on the health care delivery
system, and the effect of these tools on
patient access?
D. Approaches to Standardizing REMS
Tools
Many stakeholders have asked FDA to
standardize specific REMS tools like
stakeholder enrollments, Web sites, and
educational materials. Standardizing
REMS tools will require ongoing
collaboration among FDA, drug
manufacturers, stakeholders, scientific
experts, and others. To ensure that
standardized tools are effective and
minimally burdensome, they should be
developed in an open and inclusive
process that incorporates the feedback
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
of all relevant stakeholders as well as
the latest science and best practices
from across the health care system. To
ensure the continued success of these
tools, they must be updated regularly as
best practices evolve.
1. What opportunities and barriers
exist for the development and
implementation of standardized REMS
tools? What are some ways that FDA can
collaborate with third parties such as
standards development organizations,
industry groups, professional societies,
and accreditation organizations to
develop standardized REMS tools and
ensure their adoption?
2. How might health information
technologies such as electronic health
records, pharmacy management systems
and electronic prescribing systems be
used to integrate REMS into existing
health care settings? What role might
health information technologies play in
REMS in the future? How can these
technologies be used to inform
practitioners and patients about REMS,
monitor patients, and document that
any safe-use conditions are met? Could
the integration of REMS into health
information systems ever reduce or
eliminate the need for other REMS tools,
such as provider education?
3. Many stakeholders have suggested
that a single Web portal should be
established to act as a repository for
standardized REMS tools and materials
and to serve as a central information or
reference source for REMS stakeholders.
What barriers exist for the development
of a single REMS Web portal? Who
would be responsible for developing
and maintaining the Web portal, and
what role would FDA play?
E. Approaches To Assessing the Impact
of REMS
Drug manufacturers are required to
submit assessments of their REMS on a
regular basis. To date, these assessments
have tried to evaluate the effectiveness
of the REMS by measuring the
frequency of adverse outcomes of
interest, the knowledge of stakeholders,
and the compliance of stakeholders with
certain REMS requirements. To
accomplish this, drug manufacturers
have relied on spontaneous adverse
event reporting, knowledge surveys, and
systems that track stakeholder
completion of certain activities, such as
enrollment and documentation of safe
use conditions. To improve how REMS
are assessed, FDA is considering
additional areas for measurement and
additional methods to measure the
impact of REMS.
1. Should FDA routinely ask sponsors
to assess the overall impact of their
REMS on prescriber, dispenser, and
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
patient burden, and/or access to the
drug? If so, how could drug
manufacturers assess the REMS impact
on access and burden?
2. What methods might be used to
separate the impact of a REMS program
from that of other related risk
management activities? Without having
a control group, how should FDA
interpret and act on REMS assessment
information?
3. It is possible to interpret evidence
of sustained REMS effectiveness to
mean that the REMS should be
maintained indefinitely, but such
evidence may also suggest that safe use
of the drug is now ingrained in the
health care system and that the REMS
can be modified or eliminated. What
evidence could help FDA determine
whether a drug would continue to be
used safely if the REMS were modified
or released?
IV. Attendance and Registration
The FDA Conference Center at the
White Oak location is a federal facility
with security procedures and limited
seating. Attendance is free and will be
on a first come, first served basis.
Individuals who wish to present at the
public meeting must register on or
before July 10, 2013, through https://
remsmeeting.eventbrite.com and
provide complete contact information,
including name, title, affiliation,
address, email, and phone number. In
section III of this document, FDA has
included questions for comment. You
should identify the questions you wish
to address in your presentation, so that
FDA can consider that in organizing the
presentations. FDA will do its best to
accommodate requests to speak, and
will determine the amount of time
allotted to each presenter and the
approximate time that each oral
presentation is scheduled to begin. An
agenda will be available approximately
2 weeks before the meeting at https://
www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/
PrescriptionDrugUserFee/
ucm351029.htm.
If you need special accommodations
because of disability, please contact
Adam Kroetsch (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days
before the meeting.
A live Web cast of this meeting will
be viewable at https://
collaboration.fda.gov/remsjuly2013/ on
the day of the meeting. A video record
of the meeting will be available at the
same Web address for 1 year.
V. Comments
Interested persons may submit either
electronic comments regarding this
document to https://www.regulations.gov
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 99 / Wednesday, May 22, 2013 / Notices
or written comments to the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It
is only necessary to send one set of
comments. Identify comments with the
docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. To ensure
consideration, submit comment by (see
DATES). Received comments may be seen
in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at https://
www.regulations.gov.
VI. Transcripts
Please be advised that as soon as a
transcript is available, it will be
accessible at https://
www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed
at the Division of Dockets Management
(HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD. A transcript will
also be available in either hardcopy or
on CD–ROM, after submission of a
Freedom of Information request. Written
requests are to be sent to the Division
of Freedom of Information (ELEM–
1029), Food and Drug Administration,
12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857.
Dated: May 16, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013–12124 Filed 5–21–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2013–N–0001]
Science Board to the Food and Drug
Administration; Notice of Meeting
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
TKELLEY on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ACTION:
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming
meeting of a public advisory committee
of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). The meeting will be open to the
public.
Name of Committee: Science Board to
the Food and Drug Administration
(Science Board).
General Function of the Committee:
The Science Board provides advice
primarily to the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs and other appropriate
officials on specific complex scientific
and technical issues important to FDA
and its mission, including emerging
issues within the scientific community.
Additionally, the Science Board
provides advice to the Agency on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:59 May 21, 2013
Jkt 229001
keeping pace with technical and
scientific developments including in
regulatory science; and input into the
Agency’s research agenda; and on
upgrading its scientific and research
facilities and training opportunities. It
will also provide, where requested,
expert review of Agency sponsored
intramural and extramural scientific
research programs.
Date and Time: The meeting will be
held on Monday, June 24, 2013, from
approximately 1 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.
Location: Food and Drug
Administration, White Oak Bldg. 31,
Rm. 1503, section A, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20993. This meeting will be held via
teleconference (301–796–4100 or 866–
901–3913; passcode: 665127) and via
Adobe Connect (https://
collaboration.fda.gov/scienceboard).
Information regarding special
accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may
be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under
the heading ‘‘Resources for You,’’ click
on ‘‘Public Meetings at the FDA White
Oak Campus.’’ Please note that visitors
to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
Contact Person: Martha Monser,
Office of the Chief Scientist, Office of
the Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, White Oak Bldg. 32,
Rm. 4286, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301–796–
4627, email:
martha.monser@fda.hhs.gov, or FDA
Advisory Committee Information Line,
1–800–741–8138 (301–443–0572 in the
Washington, DC area). A notice in the
Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously
announced advisory committee meeting
cannot always be published quickly
enough to provide timely notice.
Therefore, you should always check the
Agency’s Web site at https://
www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/
default.htm and scroll down to the
appropriate advisory committee meeting
link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the
meeting.
Agenda: On June 24, 2013, the
Science Board will be provided draft
final reports from the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health Research
Review subcommittee, and the Global
Health subcommittee. A revised charge
(initially proposed at the October 3,
2012, Science Board meeting) regarding
a new subcommittee to evaluate the
Agency’s continuing work to address
the challenges identified in the Science
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
30317
Board’s 2007 ‘‘Science and Mission at
Risk’’ Report will be presented.
FDA intends to make background
material available to the public no later
than 2 business days before the meeting.
If FDA is unable to post the background
material on its Web site prior to the
meeting, the background material will
be made publicly available at the
location of the advisory committee
meeting, and the background material
will be posted on FDA’s Web site after
the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm. Scroll down to the
appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
Procedure: Interested persons may
present data, information, or views,
orally or in writing, on issues pending
before the committee. Written
submissions may be made to the contact
person on or before Monday, June 17,
2013. Oral presentations from the public
will be scheduled between
approximately 1:15 p.m. and 1:45 p.m.
Those individuals interested in making
formal oral presentations should notify
the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the
evidence or arguments they wish to
present, the names and addresses of
proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on
or before Friday, June 7, 2013. Time
allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants
requesting to speak is greater than can
be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session,
FDA may conduct a lottery to determine
the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact
person will notify interested persons
regarding their request to speak by
Monday, June 10, 2013.
Persons attending FDA’s advisory
committee meetings are advised that the
Agency is not responsible for providing
access to electrical outlets.
FDA welcomes the attendance of the
public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to
accommodate persons with physical
disabilities or special needs. If you
require special accommodations due to
a disability, please contact Martha
Monser, at least 7 days in advance of the
meeting.
FDA is committed to the orderly
conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at
https://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/
AboutAdvisoryCommittees/
ucm111462.htm for procedures on
E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM
22MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 99 (Wednesday, May 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30313-30317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0502]
Standardizing and Evaluating Risk Evaluation and Mitigation
Strategies; Notice of Public Meeting; Request for Comments
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a 2-day
public meeting to obtain input on issues and challenges associated with
the standardization and assessment of risk evaluation and mitigation
strategies (REMS) for drug and biological products. As part of the
reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), FDA has
committed to standardizing REMS to better integrate them into, and
reduce their burden to, the existing and evolving health care system.
As part of the PDUFA commitments, FDA will also seek to develop
evidence-based methodologies for assessing the effectiveness of REMS.
To obtain input from stakeholders about REMS standardization and
evaluation, FDA will hold a public meeting to give stakeholders,
including health care providers, prescribers, patients, pharmacists,
distributors, drug manufacturers, vendors, researchers, standards
development organizations, and the public an opportunity to provide
input on ways to standardize and assess REMS.
DATES: The meeting will be held on July 25 and 26, 2013, from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Individuals who wish to present at the meeting must
register by July 10, 2013. See section IV of this document for
information on how to register to speak at the meeting.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at FDA's White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993. Submit electronic comments to
https://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of
Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify each set of
comments with the corresponding docket number for the public meeting as
follows: ``Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0502, ``Standardization and Evaluation
of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies, Public Meeting.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Kroetsch, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
3842, FAX: 301-847-8443, email: REMS_Standardization@fda.hhs.gov.
I. Background
This meeting builds upon prior stakeholder feedback on and input
into the design, implementation, and assessment of REMS. In July 2010,
FDA held a public meeting to obtain input on issues associated with the
development and implementation of REMS. In June 2012, FDA held a public
workshop to discuss survey methodologies and instruments that can be
used to evaluate patients' and health care providers' knowledge about
the risks of drugs marketed with an approved REMS. In addition, the
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85)
requires FDA to bring, at least annually, one or more drugs with REMS
with elements to assure safe use (ETASU) before the Drug Safety and
Risk Management Advisory Committee. FDA also regularly discusses both
pre- and postapproval REMS with ETASUs with various FDA advisory
committees in the context of specific applications.
This meeting also builds on FDA's internal efforts to improve the
design, implementation and assessment of REMS. In 2011, FDA created the
REMS Integration Initiative, designed to evaluate and improve its
implementation of REMS authorities. More information about the REMS
Integration Initiative can be found at (https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm350852.htm). As part of this
effort, FDA seeks to improve future REMS assessments and incorporate
the latest methodologies in the evolving science of risk management. In
its February 2013 report, ``FDA Lacks Comprehensive Data to Determine
Whether Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies Improve Drug
Safety,'' the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the
Inspector General affirmed the need to identify and implement reliable
methods to assess the effectiveness of REMS and REMS components. This
report is available at https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-04-11-00510.pdf.
This public meeting is intended to meet performance goals included
in the fifth reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA V). This reauthorization, part of the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) (Pub. L. 112-144)
signed by the President on July 9, 2012, includes a number of
performance goals and procedures that are documented in the PDUFA V
[[Page 30314]]
Commitment Letter. (See ``PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and
Procedures Fiscal Years 2013 Through 2017,'' which is available at
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm270412.pdf.)
FDA developed the performance goals and procedures for PDUFA V in
consultation with drug industry representatives, patient and consumer
advocates, health care professionals, and other public stakeholders
from July 2010 through May 2011. Title XI of the letter, ``Enhancement
and Modernization of the FDA Drug Safety System,'' states that FDA user
fees will be used to enhance REMS by measuring the effectiveness of
REMS and evaluating, with stakeholder input, appropriate ways to better
integrate them into the existing and evolving health care system. (See
``PDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years
2013 through 2017'' at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/
UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM270412.pdf).
Toward that end, the PDUFA V Commitment Letter identified a number
of specific goals, including holding one or more public meetings to
explore strategies to standardize REMS and reduce the burden of
implementing REMS on practitioners, patients, and others in various
health care settings and on methodologies for assessing whether REMS
are mitigating the risks they purport to mitigate and for assessing the
effectiveness and impact of REMS, including methods for assessing the
effect on patient access, individual practitioners, and the overall
burden on the health care delivery system. FDA also committed to
issuing a report of its findings regarding standardizing REMS; the
report will identify priority projects in four areas (pharmacy systems,
prescriber education, providing benefit/risk information to patients,
and practice settings). FDA also committed to issuing guidance on
methodologies for assessing REMS, specifically, methodologies for
determining whether a specific REMS with ETASU is commensurate with the
specific serious risk listed in the labeling of the drug and
considering the observed risk, not unduly burdensome on patient access
to the drug. For details on specific FDA commitments, see the PDUFA
Reauthorization Performance Goals and Procedures Fiscal Years 2013
Through 2017, Section XI, ``Enhancement and Modernization of the FDA
Drug Safety System,'' Parts A2, A3, which is available at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/forindustry/userfees/prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm270412.pdf.
II. Purpose and Scope of Meeting
The purpose of this public meeting is to obtain feedback from
stakeholders on: (1) Issues and challenges associated with
standardizing and assessing REMS for drug and biological products and
(2) identifying potential projects that will help standardize REMS and
integrate them into the health care delivery system. FDA is seeking
information and comments from a broad range of stakeholders, including
interested health care providers, prescribers, patients, pharmacists,
distributors, drug manufacturers, vendors, researchers, standards
development organizations, and the public.
To promote greater standardization and improved assessment of REMS,
FDA is seeking feedback on how to reduce any unnecessary variation in
REMS and, in the process, to make REMS elements and associated tools
less burdensome to stakeholders, better integrated into the health care
system, more effective, and easier to assess. FDA recognizes that the
REMS elements and associated tools found in existing REMS programs have
varied. In some cases, these variations are appropriate, because REMS
are designed to address specific risks posed by particular drugs in a
wide range of patient populations and health care settings. However,
FDA may be able to establish standards to reduce unnecessary variation
and to make REMS more predictable and simpler to understand, implement,
and measure. The establishment of standards also presents the
opportunity to improve upon the design of REMS elements and associated
tools and assessment methodologies in the future.
After this meeting, FDA will issue a report to the public that
identifies REMS standardization projects in the four areas specified in
the PDUFA V commitment letter: Prescriber education, pharmacy systems,
practice settings, and providing benefit/risk information to patients.
FDA welcomes stakeholder input to help identify high-quality projects
that could offer FDA and stakeholders the opportunity to develop, test,
and implement new approaches to standardizing REMS and integrating them
into the health care system. The scope of such projects might include
research studies, demonstration projects, and the development of new
REMS tools using, for example, emerging information technologies or
existing controls in the health care system. These projects might be
carried out by FDA alone or in collaboration with stakeholders and
outside experts.
III. Scope of Public Input Requested
FDA is particularly interested in obtaining information and public
comment on the following areas:
A. Prescriber-Directed REMS Tools
REMS programs use a number of tools to educate prescribers and/or
ensure that they carry out REMS requirements, including screening,
monitoring, and counseling patients. These tools have included risk
communications to prescribers, prescriber training, and instruments to
help prescribers prescribe the drug safely--for example, counseling
guides and checklists.
1. Many REMS with elements to assure safe use provide for
prescriber training on the risks of the drug and how to use the drug
safely. In some REMS, the completion of this training is required
before a person can become a certified prescriber of the drug. Sponsors
provide REMS training in a variety of formats, including in-person,
online, and through printed materials. FDA is interested in input on
which formats and training approaches are most effective for prescriber
training; how frequently prescribers should be asked to take REMS
training and whether a single training is sufficient; what additional
tools could be used to reinforce what prescribers learn during the
training and help them apply what they have learned; and how REMS
training could be incorporated into continuing medical education
programs.
2. Prescriber training often includes knowledge assessments that
prescribers must successfully complete as part of the training. These
knowledge assessments, which typically take the form of multiple-choice
questions, are designed to ensure that the prescriber understands the
training material; they also serve to reinforce key messages from the
training. (Knowledge assessments should not be confused with the
surveys of knowledge that drug manufacturers may conduct as part of
their REMS assessments.) FDA is interested in input on when knowledge
assessments should be included in REMS and whether they should be
included in all REMS that include prescriber training. In addition, FDA
requests input on how knowledge assessments can be designed to ensure
accurate measurement of prescribers' knowledge and how knowledge
assessments can be designed to measure or predict prescribers' ability
to apply what they have learned in their practice.
3. Once prescribers have met all requirements for certification
under the
[[Page 30315]]
REMS (e.g., completed training), they generally must complete an
enrollment form to be recognized as certified and able to prescribe the
drug. Generally, by completing, signing, and submitting the enrollment
form, prescribers acknowledge their understanding of the drug's risks
and the REMS requirements. In some REMS, the enrollment form also is
used to share information about the risks of the drug and how to use
the drug safely. FDA is interested in stakeholder input on whether the
information and agreements included in current REMS prescriber
enrollment forms are presented in a way that is easy for prescribers to
understand. Also, what, if anything, should be done to standardize,
simplify, or streamline prescriber enrollment forms and the overall
prescriber enrollment process?
4. What else can be done to improve the effectiveness of existing
prescriber-directed REMS tools, to standardize them, to reduce their
burden, and/or to better integrate them into the health care delivery
system?
5. What tools and technologies not currently used in REMS could be
incorporated into REMS to help educate prescribers and ensure that they
carry out REMS requirements? What evidence exists to support the
effectiveness of these tools and technologies?
6. What projects could be carried out to standardize the provision
of prescriber education in REMS?
7. What projects could be carried out to better integrate REMS into
prescriber practice settings?
8. What methodologies exist or might be developed to assess the
effectiveness of prescriber-directed REMS tools, the tools' burden on
the health care delivery system, and the effect of these tools on
patient access?
B. Patient-Directed REMS Tools
REMS programs may use a number of tools to educate and counsel
patients, provide patients with information about the risks of the
drug, and help to ensure that patients use the drug safely. These tools
may include patient enrollment in the REMS, patient monitoring,
counseling by health care professionals, Medication Guides, and other
patient-directed educational materials.
1. REMS use a range of written materials to help educate and
counsel patients, including Medication Guides. In some cases, health
care practitioners give these materials to patients to read on their
own, and in other cases health care providers are asked to review these
materials with patients and use them in patient counseling.
2. In REMS that include patient education, what would make written
educational materials more effective? What other materials, tools, and
technologies, (e.g., reference materials, checklists, smartphone
applications) might be used to help educate patients and reinforce what
they have learned?
3. How could the provision of information to patients be
standardized, and what are the most efficient ways of providing
information to patients given the variety of patient information needs
and learning styles?
4. In many REMS, patients receive counseling that may include a
discussion of the benefits and risks of the drug as well as
instructions on how to use the drug safely. In the majority of such
REMS, prescribers are called upon to counsel patients, but other health
care practitioners, including pharmacists and nurses, may also play a
role in counseling patients. What are ways to improve current REMS
approach to counseling patients? How should the timing and frequency of
patient counseling be determined? Under what circumstances is it
appropriate for prescribers to provide patient counseling in a REMS,
when should other providers play a role in counseling patients in a
REMS, and how can patient counseling in REMS be integrated into
pharmacists' existing medication therapy management practices?
5. Many REMS with elements to assure safe use include prescriber-
patient agreements. These agreements are used to document that an
informed discussion of the drug's benefits and risks took place and
that the patient understood the risks. Prescriber-patient agreements
may also support patient counseling by providing information for
prescribers to review with patients. Some REMS require that these
agreements be signed by the prescriber and patient and submitted to the
drug manufacturer. Are the information and agreements included in
prescriber-patient agreements presented in a way that is easy for
patients to understand and act upon? What, if anything, should be done
to standardize, simplify, or streamline prescriber-patient agreement
forms and the overall agreement process?
6. What else can be done to improve the effectiveness of existing
patient-directed tools, to standardize them, to reduce their burden,
and/or to better integrate them into the existing and evolving health
care delivery system?
7. What tools and technologies not currently used in REMS could be
incorporated into REMS to help counsel patients, to provide them with
information on the risks of the drug, and to ensure that they use the
drug safely? What evidence exists to support the effectiveness of these
tools and technologies?
8. What projects could be carried out to standardize the provision
of benefit-risk information to patients?
9. What methodologies exist or might be developed to assess the
effectiveness of patient-directed REMS tools, the tools' burden on the
health care delivery system, and the effect of these tools on patient
access?
C. REMS Tools in Drug Dispensing Settings
Drug dispensing settings, such as prescribers' offices, hospitals,
pharmacies (e.g., specialty, retail, and mail-order), integrated health
care delivery systems, and infusion centers, often play a significant
role in REMS. This is a challenging area to address because of the wide
range of health care settings involved and because dispensers are
frequently called upon to coordinate care across a range of health care
settings and practitioners and to reinforce the tools that have been
used by other health care practitioners. Specific dispensing settings
may be required to obtain certification under a REMS, and, like
prescribers, the health care practitioners who dispense a drug
(authorized dispensers) may be required to complete training, counsel
patients, and provide patients with educational materials, including
Medication Guides. In addition, dispensers may be required to document
that certain safe-use conditions are met before dispensing (e.g., by
ordering/checking lab tests or completing a form or checklist).
Many REMS with elements to assure safe use require that specific
health care settings be certified to be able to dispense the drug. To
certify the health care setting, REMS typically require a
representative of that health care setting to agree that the health
care setting will meet all REMS requirements, including the completion
of any necessary training.
1. Under what circumstances should individual practitioners within
a health care setting (e.g., pharmacists, as opposed to pharmacies) be
certified, instead of the health care setting? How could this
effectively be accomplished while minimizing the burden on the health
care system?
2. In most REMS that include dispenser certification, each
dispensing site is certified individually. Under what circumstances
would it be appropriate to use a single certification for a health care
setting with multiple dispensing sites such as a pharmacy
[[Page 30316]]
chain, an integrated health care system, or a hospital system?
3. In what ways can the implementation of REMS tools in different
dispensing settings be standardized, and under what circumstances might
the implementation approach need to vary to accommodate the different
types of dispensing settings that can be part of a REMS?
4. What obstacles have made it difficult for authorized dispensers
to obtain drugs under existing REMS, and how can these be overcome?
5. How can REMS be made more compatible with existing systems for
the procurement and distribution of drugs? How can REMS be integrated
into any future electronic track and trace systems?
6. What else can be done to improve the effectiveness of existing
REMS tools in drug dispensing settings, to standardize them, to reduce
their burden, and/or to better integrate them into the existing and
evolving health care delivery system?
7. What tools and technologies not currently used in REMS could be
incorporated into REMS to help train and certify authorized dispensers,
ensure that only certified dispensers can obtain the drug, and ensure
that any safe-use conditions are met before a drug is dispensed? What
evidence exists to support the effectiveness of these tools and
technologies?
8. What projects could be carried out to integrate REMS tools into
pharmacy systems?
9. What projects could be carried out to integrate REMS tools into
other drug dispensing settings, such as hospitals, pharmacies, long-
term care facilities, and integrated health care delivery systems?
10. What methodologies exist or might be developed to assess the
effectiveness of REMS tools across the range of dispensing settings,
the tools' burden on the health care delivery system, and the effect of
these tools on patient access?
D. Approaches to Standardizing REMS Tools
Many stakeholders have asked FDA to standardize specific REMS tools
like stakeholder enrollments, Web sites, and educational materials.
Standardizing REMS tools will require ongoing collaboration among FDA,
drug manufacturers, stakeholders, scientific experts, and others. To
ensure that standardized tools are effective and minimally burdensome,
they should be developed in an open and inclusive process that
incorporates the feedback of all relevant stakeholders as well as the
latest science and best practices from across the health care system.
To ensure the continued success of these tools, they must be updated
regularly as best practices evolve.
1. What opportunities and barriers exist for the development and
implementation of standardized REMS tools? What are some ways that FDA
can collaborate with third parties such as standards development
organizations, industry groups, professional societies, and
accreditation organizations to develop standardized REMS tools and
ensure their adoption?
2. How might health information technologies such as electronic
health records, pharmacy management systems and electronic prescribing
systems be used to integrate REMS into existing health care settings?
What role might health information technologies play in REMS in the
future? How can these technologies be used to inform practitioners and
patients about REMS, monitor patients, and document that any safe-use
conditions are met? Could the integration of REMS into health
information systems ever reduce or eliminate the need for other REMS
tools, such as provider education?
3. Many stakeholders have suggested that a single Web portal should
be established to act as a repository for standardized REMS tools and
materials and to serve as a central information or reference source for
REMS stakeholders. What barriers exist for the development of a single
REMS Web portal? Who would be responsible for developing and
maintaining the Web portal, and what role would FDA play?
E. Approaches To Assessing the Impact of REMS
Drug manufacturers are required to submit assessments of their REMS
on a regular basis. To date, these assessments have tried to evaluate
the effectiveness of the REMS by measuring the frequency of adverse
outcomes of interest, the knowledge of stakeholders, and the compliance
of stakeholders with certain REMS requirements. To accomplish this,
drug manufacturers have relied on spontaneous adverse event reporting,
knowledge surveys, and systems that track stakeholder completion of
certain activities, such as enrollment and documentation of safe use
conditions. To improve how REMS are assessed, FDA is considering
additional areas for measurement and additional methods to measure the
impact of REMS.
1. Should FDA routinely ask sponsors to assess the overall impact
of their REMS on prescriber, dispenser, and patient burden, and/or
access to the drug? If so, how could drug manufacturers assess the REMS
impact on access and burden?
2. What methods might be used to separate the impact of a REMS
program from that of other related risk management activities? Without
having a control group, how should FDA interpret and act on REMS
assessment information?
3. It is possible to interpret evidence of sustained REMS
effectiveness to mean that the REMS should be maintained indefinitely,
but such evidence may also suggest that safe use of the drug is now
ingrained in the health care system and that the REMS can be modified
or eliminated. What evidence could help FDA determine whether a drug
would continue to be used safely if the REMS were modified or released?
IV. Attendance and Registration
The FDA Conference Center at the White Oak location is a federal
facility with security procedures and limited seating. Attendance is
free and will be on a first come, first served basis. Individuals who
wish to present at the public meeting must register on or before July
10, 2013, through https://remsmeeting.eventbrite.com and provide
complete contact information, including name, title, affiliation,
address, email, and phone number. In section III of this document, FDA
has included questions for comment. You should identify the questions
you wish to address in your presentation, so that FDA can consider that
in organizing the presentations. FDA will do its best to accommodate
requests to speak, and will determine the amount of time allotted to
each presenter and the approximate time that each oral presentation is
scheduled to begin. An agenda will be available approximately 2 weeks
before the meeting at https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm351029.htm.
If you need special accommodations because of disability, please
contact Adam Kroetsch (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7
days before the meeting.
A live Web cast of this meeting will be viewable at https://collaboration.fda.gov/remsjuly2013/ on the day of the meeting. A video
record of the meeting will be available at the same Web address for 1
year.
V. Comments
Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to https://www.regulations.gov
[[Page 30317]]
or written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. To ensure consideration, submit comment by (see DATES).
Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to
the docket at https://www.regulations.gov.
VI. Transcripts
Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at https://www.regulations.gov. It may be viewed at
the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD. A
transcript will also be available in either hardcopy or on CD-ROM,
after submission of a Freedom of Information request. Written requests
are to be sent to the Division of Freedom of Information (ELEM-1029),
Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg.,
Rockville, MD 20857.
Dated: May 16, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-12124 Filed 5-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P