Here is the introduction and summary from the government's reply brief in Franck's:
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Like the definition of "new drug" for human use, the
definition of "new animal drug" in the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act ("FDCA" or "the Act") is sweeping and
straightforward – "any drug intended for use for animals other than
man" that "is not generally recognized * * * as safe and effective
under the conditions prescribed." 21 U.S.C. § 321(v)(1) (emphasis added);
compare id. § 321(p)(1) ("new drug" definition). When a pharmacy
compounds a drug for animal use, it creates a Case: 11-15350 Date Filed:
05/01/2012 "new animal drug" because the compounded product is not
generally recognized by experts as safe and effective, and it has not been
subjected to the controlled clinical trials that are necessary to establish its
safety and effectiveness. Even a drug that is a copy of an approved animal drug
is a "new animal drug" that must be independently established as safe
and effective when produced by a party other than the one that holds FDA
approval for the drug. Although Congress has carved out a few exceptions to the
"new animal drug" definition and the FDCA's approval and other
requirements for such drugs, it has enacted no unconditional exemption for new
animal drugs compounded by pharmacies.
Thus, the consistent position of the
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA" or "the agency") –
based on the Act's plain language and documented in litigation, FDA's
Compliance Policy Guides ("CPG"), and regulations – has been that
pharmacy-compounded drugs for human and animal use are "new drugs"
and "new animal drugs" that require FDA approval before they can be
lawfully distributed in interstate commerce. At the same time, however, FDA recognizes that drug
compounding is part of traditional pharmacy practice, and, when compounded
pursuant to valid prescriptions for individual patients, compounded drugs can
serve important public health purposes by meeting the needs of patients for
whom approved, commercially available drugs are inadequate. For that reason,
FDA has 2 Case: 11-15350 Date Filed: 05/01/2012 historically declined, and
continues to decline, to take enforcement action against pharmacies engaged in
traditional compounding activities. However, when evidence shows (as in this
case) that a pharmacy's activities substantially exceed the bounds of
traditional compounding, and the pharmacy is effectively engaged in drug
manufacturing masquerading as compounding, without compliance with FDCA
approval and other requirements, the agency takes enforcement action.
Three
other circuits have squarely held that pharmacy-compounded animal drugs are
"new animal drugs" under the Act and are therefore subject to FDA's
enforcement authority. Med. Ctr. Pharmacy v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 383, 408 (5th
Cir. 2008) ("Medical Center"); United States v. Algon Chem. Inc., 879
F.2d 1154, 1158, 1160 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. 9/1 Kg. Containers, 854
F.2d 173, 179 (7th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1010, 109 S. Ct. 1118
(1989). No circuit has held otherwise. Moreover, the Supreme Court has discussed
approvingly FDA's enforcement policy and affirmed that "the Government
needs to be able to draw a line between small-scale compounding and large-scale
drug manufacturing." Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357,
361-63, 370, 122 S. Ct. 1497, 1501-02, 1505 (2002) ("Western
States").
This appeal presents the same fundamental question of law
answered by the courts in Medical Center, Algon, and 9/1 Kg. That question
arises in the context of 3 Case: 11-15350 Date Filed: 05/01/2012 a rare civil
enforcement action initiated by FDA against a pharmacy whose compounding
activities have demonstrably exceeded the bounds of traditional pharmacy
practice and resemble large-scale drug manufacturing. The undisputed record
supporting FDA's request for injunctive relief (largely overlooked by the
district court) shows that the animal drug compounding activities of Franck's
Lab – as its name, extensive product catalog, operations, and documented
history of FDCA violations over several years suggest – is more indicative of a
manufacturer than the corner drugstore that compounds a lifesaving medication
for the family dog pursuant to a veterinarian's individualized prescription.
Thus, this case is not about whether traditional pharmacy compounding can serve
important public health purposes; it can and does. This appeal concerns whether
Congress has authorized FDA to take enforcement action against pharmacies when
their compounding activities pose a threat to public health because they are
manufacturing drugs, but evading the FDCA's approval and other requirements
that Congress enacted to protect public health.
Franck's Lab acknowledges, as
it did in district court, that FDA has authority to take enforcement action
against entities engaged in unlawful drug manufacturing, but it fails to
identify the source of that authority and to explain where the "line
between small-scale compounding and large-scale drug manufacturing" lies.
Western 4 Case: 11-15350 Date Filed: 05/01/2012 States, 535 U.S. at 370, 122 S.
Ct. at 1505. Those failures are fatal to Franck's Franck's Lab and its amici
grossly misrepresent FDA's position (see, e.g., Franck's Br. 10),
characterizing it as extreme, when, in fact, this action represents a judicious
exercise of the agency's enforcement authority against a pharmacy that has
repeatedly flouted the law and FDA warnings.
Franck's Lab and its amici contend
that FDA has changed its policy and has acted inconsistently. Not so; the
agency's position here is fully consistent with the position that it has
repeatedly taken in other litigation over many decades and that is set forth in
FDA's publicly available enforcement guidance. Franck's Lab claims that the
federal government's action here clashes with sovereign State interests, but,
notably, Franck's Lab has not, and cannot, identify any such tension. Finally,
Franck's claim that the government has conceded or waived certain arguments is
baseless.
No comments:
Post a Comment