Mepergan Fortis Capsules; Final Decision on Proposal To Refuse Approval of Supplemental New Drug Application; Availability of Final Decision, 53507-53508 [2017-24806]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Publicly available submissions may be seen in the docket. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachael Vieder Linowes, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4206, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240–402–5931. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: default.htm, or https:// www.regulations.gov. Dated: November 13, 2017. Anna K. Abram, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis. [FR Doc. 2017–24831 Filed 11–15–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA–1981–N–0245 (Formerly 81N–0080)] I. Background Mepergan Fortis Capsules; Final Decision on Proposal To Refuse Approval of Supplemental New Drug Application; Availability of Final Decision AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration; HHS. ACTION: Notice. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing that the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), to refuse approval of the supplemental new drug application (sNDA) for Mepergan Fortis Capsules (MFC) (meperidine HCl, promethazine HCl), is the final decision of the Commissioner by operation of law. In the Initial Decision, the ALJ found that MFC had not been shown to be supported by substantial evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled studies to be effective for sedation and analgesia in patients with concurrent moderate pain and apprehension, such as postoperative and post-trauma patients with those symptoms; that the drug did not satisfy the combination drug policy; and that it is a ‘‘new drug.’’ The sNDA applicant filed exceptions to the ALJ’s Initial Decision. FDA recently requested that the current owner of the sNDA application affirm its desire to pursue the appeal of the ALJ’s Initial Decision; however, the applicant did not affirm its desire to pursue the appeal within the specified timeframe. Accordingly, FDA now deems those exceptions as withdrawn. Consequently, the proceeding is in the same procedural position as if no exceptions to the ALJ’s Initial Decision had been filed; therefore, the ALJ’s Initial Decision has become the final decision of the Commissioner by operation of law. DATES: This final decision is effective November 16, 2017. ADDRESSES: For access to the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov and asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Nov 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 In 1962, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) was amended by the Drug Amendments Act of 1962, and these amendments provided that new drugs could no longer be approved unless both safety and efficacy had been established for them. As amended, the FD&C Act also required FDA to evaluate drugs approved as safe between 1938 and 1962 to determine whether such drugs were effective and to withdraw approval for any new drug application (NDA) where there was not substantial evidence of the drug’s effectiveness. The person contesting the withdrawal of the approval had the burden of coming forward with evidence of effectiveness for the drug. FDA’s review of these pre1962 drugs is known as the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI) program. In a document published in the Federal Register of April 20, 1972 (37 FR 7827), after evaluating reports received from the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Drug Efficacy Study Group, and other available evidence, FDA classified MFC as ‘‘possibly effective’’ for moderate to moderately severe pain. This document also stated that no NDA had been approved or deemed approved for MFC and that additional evidence needed to be submitted to FDA to establish MFC’s effectiveness. Thereafter, Wyeth, a division of American Home Products (Wyeth), submitted a supplement to its approved NDA 11–730 (Mepergan Injection) for MFC (NDA 11–730, S– 003). In a document published in the Federal Register of September 18, 1981 (46 FR 46404), the Director of the Bureau of Drugs (now the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research) proposed to refuse approval of the sNDA and offered Wyeth the opportunity for a hearing. Wyeth submitted its request for a hearing and, by a document published PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 53507 in the Federal Register of December 31, 1984 (49 FR 50788), the Office of the Commissioner granted the hearing request. Following the submission of written testimony and documentary evidence, an ALJ, Daniel J. Davidson, conducted a hearing from January 14 to 17, 1986. He issued his Initial Decision on December 4, 1987. The ALJ found that: (1) The effectiveness of MFC had not been proven by substantial evidence of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, (2) the requirements of the combination drug policy had not been met, and (3) MFC is a new drug under 21 U.S.C. 321(p). Wyeth timely appealed the ALJ’s Initial Decision by filing exceptions with the Commissioner under 21 CFR 12.125. On August 23, 2017, FDA sent a letter to West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation (West-Ward), successor to Wyeth, to determine whether WestWard remained interested in pursuing its appeal of the ALJ’s Initial Decision. FDA informed the company that if it did not respond and affirm its desire to pursue its appeal by September 21, 2017, the Office of the Commissioner would conclude that West-Ward no longer wishes to pursue the appeal of the ALJ’s Initial Decision and will proceed as if the appeal has been withdrawn. The Office of the Commissioner did not receive a response from West-Ward by the given date; therefore, the Commissioner now deems the exceptions withdrawn. II. Conclusion and Order Given that the exceptions have been deemed withdrawn, this proceeding is now in the same procedural posture as if no exceptions had ever been filed. When parties do not file exceptions to the ALJ’s Initial Decision, and the Commissioner does not file a notice of review, the ALJ’s Initial Decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner (see 21 CFR 12.120(e)). FDA will publish a notice in the Federal Register when an initial decision becomes the final decision of the Commissioner without appeal to or review by the Commissioner (see 21 CFR 12.120(f)). Therefore, the ALJ’s Initial Decision is the final decision of the Commissioner effective November 16, 2017. Pursuant to the findings in the ALJ’s Initial Decision, under section 505(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(d)) and under the authority delegated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Commissioner finds that there is a lack of substantial evidence that MFC will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1 53508 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 220 / Thursday, November 16, 2017 / Notices recommended, or suggested in its labeling for sedation and analgesia in patients with concurrent moderate pain and apprehension, such as postoperative and post-trauma patients with those symptoms. The Commissioner further finds that MFC does not meet the combination drug policy in 21 CFR 300.50 and that it is a ‘‘new drug’’ within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 321(p). Therefore, approval of the sNDA for MFC is denied. Distribution of products subject to the ALJ’s Initial Decision in interstate commerce without an approved application is prohibited and subject to regulatory action (see, e.g., sections 505(a) and 301(d) (21 U.S.C. 331(d)) of the FD&C Act). The full text of the ALJ’s Initial Decision may be seen in the Dockets Management Staff and in this docket (see ADDRESSES). Dated: November 7, 2017. Denise Hinton, Acting Chief Scientist. [FR Doc. 2017–24806 Filed 11–15–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164–01–P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Electronic Submissions Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA–2017–N–6292] Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments. ACTION: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA’s regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this document. DATES: The meeting will be held on January 10, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: College Park Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, Chesapeake Ballroom, 3501 University Blvd. East, Hyattsville, MD 20783. The conference center’s telephone number is 301–985– 7300. Answers to commonly asked questions about FDA Advisory Committee meetings may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/Advisory asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:52 Nov 15, 2017 Jkt 244001 Committees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ ucm408555.htm. FDA is establishing a docket for public comment on this meeting. The docket number is FDA–2017–N–6292. The docket will close on January 9, 2018. Submit either electronic or written comments on this public meeting by January 9, 2018. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before January 9, 2018. The https://www.regulations. gov electronic filing system will accept comments until midnight Eastern Time at the end of January 9, 2018. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service acceptance receipt is on or before that date. Comments received on or before December 22, 2017, will be provided to the committee. Comments received after that date will be taken into consideration by the Agency. You may submit comments as follows: Submit electronic comments in the following way: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www. regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else’s Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov. • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see ‘‘Written/Paper Submissions’’ and ‘‘Instructions’’). Written/Paper Submissions Submit written/paper submissions as follows: • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA–305), Food and PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. • For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ‘‘Instructions.’’ Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA– 2017–N–6292 for ‘‘Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments.’’ Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ‘‘Confidential Submissions,’’ publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states ‘‘THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.’’ The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as ‘‘confidential.’’ Any information marked as ‘‘confidential’’ will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA’s posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/ fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/201523389.pdf. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations. gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the ‘‘Search’’ box and follow the prompts and/or go to the E:\FR\FM\16NON1.SGM 16NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53507-53508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24806]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-1981-N-0245 (Formerly 81N-0080)]


Mepergan Fortis Capsules; Final Decision on Proposal To Refuse 
Approval of Supplemental New Drug Application; Availability of Final 
Decision

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration; HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is 
announcing that the Initial Decision of the Administrative Law Judge 
(ALJ), to refuse approval of the supplemental new drug application 
(sNDA) for Mepergan Fortis Capsules (MFC) (meperidine HCl, promethazine 
HCl), is the final decision of the Commissioner by operation of law. In 
the Initial Decision, the ALJ found that MFC had not been shown to be 
supported by substantial evidence consisting of adequate and well-
controlled studies to be effective for sedation and analgesia in 
patients with concurrent moderate pain and apprehension, such as 
postoperative and post-trauma patients with those symptoms; that the 
drug did not satisfy the combination drug policy; and that it is a 
``new drug.'' The sNDA applicant filed exceptions to the ALJ's Initial 
Decision. FDA recently requested that the current owner of the sNDA 
application affirm its desire to pursue the appeal of the ALJ's Initial 
Decision; however, the applicant did not affirm its desire to pursue 
the appeal within the specified timeframe. Accordingly, FDA now deems 
those exceptions as withdrawn. Consequently, the proceeding is in the 
same procedural position as if no exceptions to the ALJ's Initial 
Decision had been filed; therefore, the ALJ's Initial Decision has 
become the final decision of the Commissioner by operation of law.

DATES: This final decision is effective November 16, 2017.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov 
and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this 
document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to 
the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, 
MD 20852 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Publicly 
available submissions may be seen in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachael Vieder Linowes, Office of 
Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire 
Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4206, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-5931.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In 1962, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) 
was amended by the Drug Amendments Act of 1962, and these amendments 
provided that new drugs could no longer be approved unless both safety 
and efficacy had been established for them. As amended, the FD&C Act 
also required FDA to evaluate drugs approved as safe between 1938 and 
1962 to determine whether such drugs were effective and to withdraw 
approval for any new drug application (NDA) where there was not 
substantial evidence of the drug's effectiveness. The person contesting 
the withdrawal of the approval had the burden of coming forward with 
evidence of effectiveness for the drug. FDA's review of these pre-1962 
drugs is known as the Drug Efficacy Study Implementation (DESI) 
program.
    In a document published in the Federal Register of April 20, 1972 
(37 FR 7827), after evaluating reports received from the National 
Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, Drug Efficacy Study 
Group, and other available evidence, FDA classified MFC as ``possibly 
effective'' for moderate to moderately severe pain. This document also 
stated that no NDA had been approved or deemed approved for MFC and 
that additional evidence needed to be submitted to FDA to establish 
MFC's effectiveness. Thereafter, Wyeth, a division of American Home 
Products (Wyeth), submitted a supplement to its approved NDA 11-730 
(Mepergan Injection) for MFC (NDA 11-730, S-003). In a document 
published in the Federal Register of September 18, 1981 (46 FR 46404), 
the Director of the Bureau of Drugs (now the Center for Drug Evaluation 
and Research) proposed to refuse approval of the sNDA and offered Wyeth 
the opportunity for a hearing.
    Wyeth submitted its request for a hearing and, by a document 
published in the Federal Register of December 31, 1984 (49 FR 50788), 
the Office of the Commissioner granted the hearing request. Following 
the submission of written testimony and documentary evidence, an ALJ, 
Daniel J. Davidson, conducted a hearing from January 14 to 17, 1986. He 
issued his Initial Decision on December 4, 1987. The ALJ found that: 
(1) The effectiveness of MFC had not been proven by substantial 
evidence of adequate and well-controlled clinical trials, (2) the 
requirements of the combination drug policy had not been met, and (3) 
MFC is a new drug under 21 U.S.C. 321(p). Wyeth timely appealed the 
ALJ's Initial Decision by filing exceptions with the Commissioner under 
21 CFR 12.125.
    On August 23, 2017, FDA sent a letter to West-Ward Pharmaceuticals 
Corporation (West-Ward), successor to Wyeth, to determine whether West-
Ward remained interested in pursuing its appeal of the ALJ's Initial 
Decision. FDA informed the company that if it did not respond and 
affirm its desire to pursue its appeal by September 21, 2017, the 
Office of the Commissioner would conclude that West-Ward no longer 
wishes to pursue the appeal of the ALJ's Initial Decision and will 
proceed as if the appeal has been withdrawn. The Office of the 
Commissioner did not receive a response from West-Ward by the given 
date; therefore, the Commissioner now deems the exceptions withdrawn.

II. Conclusion and Order

    Given that the exceptions have been deemed withdrawn, this 
proceeding is now in the same procedural posture as if no exceptions 
had ever been filed. When parties do not file exceptions to the ALJ's 
Initial Decision, and the Commissioner does not file a notice of 
review, the ALJ's Initial Decision becomes the final decision of the 
Commissioner (see 21 CFR 12.120(e)). FDA will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register when an initial decision becomes the final decision of 
the Commissioner without appeal to or review by the Commissioner (see 
21 CFR 12.120(f)).
    Therefore, the ALJ's Initial Decision is the final decision of the 
Commissioner effective November 16, 2017. Pursuant to the findings in 
the ALJ's Initial Decision, under section 505(d) of the FD&C Act (21 
U.S.C. 355(d)) and under the authority delegated by the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services, the Commissioner finds that there is a lack 
of substantial evidence that MFC will have the effect it purports or is 
represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed,

[[Page 53508]]

recommended, or suggested in its labeling for sedation and analgesia in 
patients with concurrent moderate pain and apprehension, such as 
postoperative and post-trauma patients with those symptoms. The 
Commissioner further finds that MFC does not meet the combination drug 
policy in 21 CFR 300.50 and that it is a ``new drug'' within the 
meaning of 21 U.S.C. 321(p). Therefore, approval of the sNDA for MFC is 
denied. Distribution of products subject to the ALJ's Initial Decision 
in interstate commerce without an approved application is prohibited 
and subject to regulatory action (see, e.g., sections 505(a) and 301(d) 
(21 U.S.C. 331(d)) of the FD&C Act).
    The full text of the ALJ's Initial Decision may be seen in the 
Dockets Management Staff and in this docket (see ADDRESSES).

    Dated: November 7, 2017.
Denise Hinton,
Acting Chief Scientist.
[FR Doc. 2017-24806 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.