Feature | November 13, 2013

Lack of Off-Label Promotion Guidance Leaves Companies in the Dark

LeClairRyan attorney offers suggestions for pharmaceutical and medical device companies targeted by regulators

November 13, 2013 – No law prevents doctors from freely prescribing U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs and devices for off-label uses, yet regulators continue to aggressively pursue civil and criminal enforcement of perceived violations, warns Patrick J. Hurd, senior counsel with LeClairRyan in Washington, D.C. and Norfolk, Va. in the November 2013 edition of Westlaw Journal Pharmaceutical.

His article, “Charting a Prudent Course on Off-Label Promotion of Drugs and Devices,” also appeared in the September 10, 2013 edition of Westlaw Journal Medical Devices.

The promotional materials used by drug and device companies are among the most heavily regulated communications in the world, notes Hurd, adding that in fiscal year 2012 alone, the Justice Department recovered nearly $2 billion in cases alleging false claims for drugs and medical devices, and obtained 14 criminal convictions and $1.5 billion in criminal fines and forfeitures under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

But this does not necessarily mean that drug and device companies should simply refrain from ever discussing off-label uses of their products in ways that could be construed as promotional, he adds.

“This is because, taken together, three rulings from the past few years do suggest a framework for charting a prudent course on off-label promotions,” explains Hurd, a member of the firm’s BioPharma and Life Sciences Industry Team, who represents hospitals, physicians, medical device makers and other healthcare-related organizations.

The rulings, United States v. Caputo, 517 F.3d 935 (7th Cir. 2008), United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012), and United States v. Harkonen, 510 F. App’x 633 (9th Cir. 2013), also help to “clarify the conditions under which the free speech clause of the First Amendment is likely to protect such discussions,” he adds.

In the Caputo case, the issue involved off-label claims about Plazlyte, a device formerly used to sterilize medical instruments. According to the government, executives from manufacturer Abtox Inc. ignored studies showing product failures and aggressively marketed the sterilizer for unsafe uses even in the face of FDA warning letters. The executives were convicted of multiple counts of fraud, sentenced to prison terms and ordered to pay restitution of $17.2 million to 144 hospitals.

The defendants appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing, among other things, that their First Amendment rights had been violated. The court rejected that argument, noting that “unless the machine itself could be sold lawfully, there were no lawful off-label uses to promote. And the jury found, by its verdicts on both the fraud-on-the-United States count and the misbranded-device counts, that the [sterilizer device] could not be sold,” Hurd writes.

In stark contrast to that, United States v. Caronia “helps illustrate the conditions under which drug and device makers can feel more confident about discussing off-label uses,” Hurd adds. In the Caronia case, a sales representative and a paid-consultant physician were charged in August 2008 with two counts of misbranding after they promoted off-label uses of the narcolepsy drug Xyrem to a government informant who was wearing a wire.

Convicted by a jury, the defendants appealed to the 2nd Circuit, arguing that the misbranding provisions in the FDCA violated the First Amendment by preventing the drug company representatives from engaging in speech related to off-label promotion. The circuit court applied the Supreme Court’s four-pronged test for protected commercial speech and concluded that the government “simply … cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives under the FDCA for speech promoting the lawful, off-label use of an FDA-approved drug,” notes Hurd.

But a more recent case, United States v. Harkonen, highlights the potential for illegal conduct to trump any assumed protections of speech, Hurd cautions. On March 4, 2013, the 9th Circuit affirmed a trial court decision by focusing on the defendants’ fraudulent conduct in the case — issuing a press release full of false and misleading statements about off-label uses of the immune system booster Actimmune, thereby engaging in wire fraud.

While the Supreme Court has provided a four-pronged test for determining commercial speech protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment, the court has yet to deal head on with the issue of off-label promotion and its validity, Hurd notes. Likewise, drug and device companies are still waiting for the FDA’s final, long-promised guidance on this issue. (Hearings were first held in 2009.)

“And so, until a higher degree of clarity and granularity on off-label promotions is available, the prudent course for drug and device makers is to be conservative and cautious,” Hurd writes. “Still, these cases illustrate that communications about off-label uses of drugs and devices can indeed constitute protected commercial speech, provided they constitute truthful and lawful promotions of off-label uses for FDA-approved drugs and devices. The corollary, then, is that any false and fraudulent communications about off-label uses may not merit First Amendment protection.”

For more information: www.leclairryan.com

Related Content

Toshiba, Infinix 4-D CT, first U.S. install, Arkansas cancer center
News | CT Angiography (CTA)| May 26, 2016
Cancer patients at the Carti Cancer Center, Conway, Ark., now have access to the latest innovation in diagnostic...
cath lab, radiation exposure, glocoma
Feature | Radiation Dose Management| May 26, 2016 | Dave Fornell
May 27, 2016 — Radiation exposure to cath lab staff and physicians has seen growing concern in recent years, as the p
anticoagulants, U.S. market, Technavio, 2020, trends
News | Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapies| May 25, 2016
Technavio’s latest report on the U.S. anticoagulants market provides an analysis on the most important trends expected...
IVPA, intravascular photoacoustic imaging, fatty arteries, Purdue, Shanghai

IVPA/IVUS imaging of a perfused fresh human right coronary artery dissected from an explanted heart. (A) IVPA image. (B) IVUS image. (C) Merged IVPA/IVUS image. The 1 mm scale bar applies to all panels.

News | Intravascular Imaging| May 25, 2016
A new imaging system known as intravascular photoacoustic (IVPA) imaging that produces three-dimensional images of the...
News | Cath Lab| May 24, 2016
The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) 2016 Scientific Sessions took place May 4-7, 2016
HeartFlow, FFR-CT, ruptured coronary plaques, EMERALD study, EuroPCR 2016
News | CT Angiography (CTA)| May 23, 2016
First-in-human data presented at EuroPCR 2016 demonstrate that hemodynamic data from HeartFlow Inc. may help predict...
PCI, OFDI, OCT, optical coherence tomography, optimal frequency domain imaging, EuroPCR 2016 study
News | Intravascular Imaging| May 20, 2016
Using optimal frequency domain imaging (OFDI) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with second-generation...
Watchman, left atrial appendage closure, LAA occluder, LAA. LAAO, laa occluder, left atrial appendage, Watchman

The Boston Scientific Watchman device is currently the only transcatheter LAA occluder cleared for use in the United States.

Feature | Left Atrial Appendage (LAA) Occluders| May 20, 2016 | Dave Fornell
Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects nearly 6 million Americans and the condition puts them at significantly greater risk
St. Jude Medical, EuroPCR 2016 studies, FFR, LAAO, left atrial appendage occlusion, fractional flow reserve, Amplatzer
News | Cath Lab| May 19, 2016
St. Jude Medical Inc. announced results from two cardiovascular clinical trials presented at EuroPCR 2016.
clot, coronary thrombus, antiplatelet therapt, DAPT

An intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) image of a thrombus formed in a coronary artery.  While there are guidelines for antiplatelet therapy, there are still questions over the duration of such therapy. 

Feature | Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapies| May 19, 2016 | Marianne Pop, Pharm.D., BCPS
There are many opinions on the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), highlighted at the 2016 American College
Overlay Init