This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-751 
entitled 'Food and Drug Administration: Approval and Oversight of the 
Drug Mifeprex' which was released on August 18, 2008. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

August 2008: 

Food and Drug Administration: 

Approval and Oversight of the Drug Mifeprex: 

FDA Approval and Oversight of Mifeprex: 

GAO-08-751: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-751, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In September 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), part of the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), approved the drug 
Mifeprex for use in terminating early term pregnancy. FDA approved the 
drug under a provision of its Subpart H regulations, allowing it to 
restrict the drug’s distribution to assure its safe use. Critics have 
questioned aspects of the Mifeprex approval process, including the 
reliance on historically-controlled clinical trials that compare a 
drug’s effects on a condition to the known course of the condition 
rather than to another drug or placebo. Critics argued that Mifeprex 
does not fit within the scope of Subpart H, which applies to drugs that 
treat serious or life-threatening illnesses. Concerns have also been 
raised about FDA’s oversight of the drug since approval, including the 
agency’s response to deaths in U.S. women who had taken the drug. 

In this report GAO (1) describes FDA’s approval of Mifeprex, including 
the evidence considered and the restrictions placed on its 
distribution; (2) compares the Mifeprex approval process to the 
approval processes for other Subpart H restricted drugs; and (3) 
compares FDA’s postmarket oversight of Mifeprex to its oversight of 
other Subpart H restricted drugs. GAO reviewed FDA regulations, 
policies, and records pertaining to its approval and oversight of 
Mifeprex and the eight other Subpart H restricted drugs. In addition, 
GAO interviewed FDA officials and external stakeholders. 

What GAO Found: 

FDA approved Mifeprex after evaluating the sponsor’s initial and 
revised new drug application through three review cycles. In the first 
cycle, FDA concluded that the available data supported the safety and 
efficacy of Mifeprex and that, because the course of pregnancy was well-
documented and the effects of the drug were self-evident, the use of 
historical controls was consistent with FDA regulations. FDA also 
concluded that before the drug could be approved, the sponsor needed to 
provide final data from an ongoing U.S. trial, and more detail on 
restricting the drug’s distribution. In the second cycle, FDA concluded 
that while the U.S. trial data confirmed the drug’s safety and 
efficacy, the sponsor needed to revise its distribution plan and 
address labeling and manufacturing deficiencies. In the final review, 
FDA concluded that termination of unwanted pregnancy is a serious 
condition and imposing restrictions under Subpart H was necessary. FDA 
approved Mifeprex, but required that the sponsor commit to conduct two 
postmarketing studies, imposed several distribution restrictions 
intended to ensure that only qualified physicians prescribe the drug, 
and required that patients attest to understanding the treatment’s 
potential complications. 

The approval process for Mifeprex was consistent with the processes for 
the other Subpart H restricted drugs, although the details of FDA’s 
approval depended on the unique risks and benefits of each drug. Common 
elements of the approval processes included that FDA needed to evaluate 
potential limitations in key clinical data (Mifeprex and six of the 
other drugs), did not approve the drugs in the first review cycle 
(Mifeprex and five others), and imposed similar types of distribution 
restrictions on Mifeprex and the other drugs, though the specific 
details of the restrictions varied across the drugs. 

FDA’s postmarket oversight of Mifeprex has been consistent with its 
oversight of other Subpart H restricted drugs. To oversee compliance 
with distribution restrictions, FDA has reviewed data from all sponsors 
and conducted inspections for Mifeprex and two other drugs. To oversee 
compliance with postmarketing study commitments, FDA has relied on 
required updates from sponsors and found unfulfilled commitments for 
most drugs, including Mifeprex. To oversee compliance with adverse 
event reporting requirements, FDA has evaluated data in sponsors’ 
reports and, for Mifeprex and seven other drugs, has conducted 
inspections that revealed deficiencies for most of these drugs, 
including Mifeprex. Lastly, FDA has taken similar steps to oversee 
postmarket safety across the drugs, such as analyzing adverse events. 
For Mifeprex, FDA investigated the deaths of six U.S. women who 
developed a severe infection after taking the drug and concluded that 
the evidence did not establish a causal relationship between Mifeprex 
and the infections. Finally, FDA has taken similar actions to address 
emerging safety concerns across the drugs, such as changing labeling. 

HHS reviewed a draft of this report and informed GAO that it did not 
have comments. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-751]. For more information, 
contact Marcia Crosse at (202) 512-7114 or crossem@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

FDA Approved Mifeprex under the Subpart H Restricted Distribution 
Provision After Concluding That Clinical Evidence Supported Its Safety 
and Efficacy: 

Approval Process for Mifeprex Was Generally Consistent with That of the 
Other Eight Subpart H Restricted Drugs: 

FDA's Postmarket Oversight of Mifeprex Has Been Consistent with the 
Agency's Oversight of the Other Subpart H Restricted Drugs: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Select Drugs Approved by FDA with Restricted Distribution: 

Appendix II: Detailed Description of Distribution Restrictions for 
Mifeprex: 

Appendix III: Prescriber's Agreement for Mifeprex Distribution: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Timeline of Key Events in FDA's Approval of Mifeprex: 

Table 2: Selected Features of Restricted Distribution Programs Imposed 
by FDA at Time of Approval under Subpart H: 

Table 3: Selected Features of FDA's Oversight of Postmarket Safety for 
Drugs Approved under Subpart H, as of May 2008: 

Abbreviations: 

AERS: Adverse Event Reporting System: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

ENL: erythema nodosum leprosum: 

FDA: Food and Drug Administration: 

FDAAA: Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HIV/AIDS: human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immune deficiency 
syndrome: 

NDA: new drug application: 

REMS: risk evaluation and mitigation strategy: 

SGE: special government employee: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

August 7, 2008: 

The Honorable Michael B. Enzi: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Jim DeMint: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Roscoe G. Bartlett: 
House of Representatives: 

In September 2000, the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted marketing approval to the 
prescription drug Mifeprex (mifepristone) for the medical termination 
of early term pregnancy.[Footnote 1] It remains the only drug approved 
in the United States for this purpose. FDA approved the drug under a 
provision of the agency's Subpart H regulations that allows FDA to 
restrict the distribution or use of a drug in order to assure its safe 
use.[Footnote 2] Under this provision FDA can require, as it did for 
Mifeprex, that distribution be restricted to certain health care 
providers with specific training or experience. Since the drug's 
approval, more than 900,000 women are estimated to have taken Mifeprex 
in the United States. 

Before a drug can be marketed in the United States, the drug sponsor 
must submit a new drug application (NDA) to FDA containing data 
demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the drug.[Footnote 3] FDA 
reviews the NDA to determine whether the drug's benefits outweigh its 
risks.[Footnote 4] Once FDA completes its review, the agency issues an 
action letter in which it either approves the drug as safe and 
effective for its intended use (approval letter), informs the sponsor 
that the drug is likely to be approved once the deficiencies FDA has 
identified are resolved (approvable letter), or indicates that approval 
cannot be obtained without substantial additional information (not 
approvable letter).[Footnote 5] If FDA issues an approvable or not 
approvable letter, a subsequent review cycle can begin once the sponsor 
has addressed the issues FDA identified. FDA may require, as a 
condition of approval, that a sponsor agree to restrict the drug's 
distribution under the agency's Subpart H regulations.[Footnote 6] 

Critics have raised concerns and questions regarding several aspects of 
FDA's approval process for Mifeprex. For example, questions have been 
raised about the reliance on data from historically controlled clinical 
trials--trials that compare a drug's effects on a condition within the 
study population to the known course of that same condition in patients 
or populations that were not part of the trial--to support the safety 
and efficacy of Mifeprex.[Footnote 7] FDA regulations allow for the use 
of such historical controls when the course of the condition in 
question is well-documented within a comparable population and the 
effect of the drug is apparent. Questions have also been raised about 
whether Mifeprex fit within the scope of Subpart H regulations, which 
apply to drugs that are intended to treat a serious or life-threatening 
illness. Critics have argued that unwanted pregnancy should not be 
considered a serious or life-threatening illness. They have also 
questioned whether FDA's use of Subpart H regulations was consistent 
with its use of the regulations to approve other drugs. 

Additionally, concerns have been raised about FDA's postmarket 
oversight of Mifeprex, including its efforts to ensure the sponsor's 
compliance with conditions of approval as well as the actions the 
agency has taken in response to reported adverse events.[Footnote 8] 
For approved drugs, FDA oversees sponsors' compliance with applicable 
reporting requirements, distribution restrictions, and other conditions 
of approval.[Footnote 9] FDA also monitors the drugs' postmarket safety 
and efficacy. In the case of Mifeprex, six U.S. women have died from 
severe bacterial infection after taking the drug, raising questions 
about its safety. Some have questioned FDA's conclusion--which it 
discussed at a May 2006 congressional hearing-- that the available 
evidence had not established a causal relationship between Mifeprex and 
the infections. 

You asked us to review FDA's approval of Mifeprex and its oversight of 
the drug since approval. In this report we (1) examine FDA's approach 
to approving Mifeprex, including the types of evidence considered and 
the restrictions placed on its distribution and use; (2) compare the 
approval process for Mifeprex to the approval processes for other drugs 
approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart H; and 
(3) compare FDA's oversight of the use of Mifeprex since its approval 
to the agency's oversight of the other drugs approved under the 
restricted distribution provision of Subpart H. 

To examine FDA's approval of Mifeprex, we reviewed relevant laws, 
regulations, policies, and guidance. We reviewed FDA records including 
an archive of documents pertaining to the approval of 
Mifeprex.[Footnote 10] We also reviewed documentation from an FDA 
advisory committee meeting,[Footnote 11] testimony statements and the 
related transcript, FDA responses to congressional requests, an August 
2002 citizen's petition and responses from outside organizations, and 
other documentation pertaining to FDA's approval of Mifeprex. We 
interviewed FDA officials and external stakeholders who had access to 
technical information or had conducted analyses pertaining to Mifeprex 
that were not available through FDA. These included a representative of 
the sponsor of the Mifeprex application and its licensee,[Footnote 12] 
the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the 
American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. 

To compare the approval process for Mifeprex to those of other drugs, 
we reviewed FDA documentation pertaining to FDA's approval of the other 
eight drugs that the agency had approved under the restricted 
distribution provision of Subpart H as of February 2007.[Footnote 13] 
Specifically, we examined key documents related to FDA's internal 
review and approval processes as well as documentation from advisory 
committee meetings in order to identify commonalities and differences 
in FDA's process across the nine Subpart H restricted drugs, including 
Mifeprex. In our examination we focused on issues that had arisen 
during FDA's review of Mifeprex to determine whether similar issues had 
arisen in FDA's review of the other drugs, and how FDA had addressed 
those issues for the other drugs. 

To compare FDA's oversight of the use of Mifeprex since approval to the 
agency's oversight of the other Subpart H restricted drugs, we reviewed 
relevant regulations and FDA guidance. We also examined FDA 
documentation on the agency's oversight of sponsors' compliance with 
distribution restrictions, postmarketing study commitments, and adverse 
event reporting requirements for the nine Subpart H restricted drugs. 
In addition, we reviewed FDA's process for evaluating and responding to 
postmarket data on adverse events for each drug. Lastly, we interviewed 
FDA officials and staff who are responsible for postmarket oversight of 
these drugs. We conducted our work from February 2007 through August 
2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Results in Brief: 

On September 28, 2000, FDA approved Mifeprex under the restricted 
distribution provision of its Subpart H regulations after examining the 
NDA through three review cycles. In its first review, FDA concluded 
that the available evidence supported the safety and efficacy of 
Mifeprex. This conclusion was based in part on FDA's determination that 
because the course of pregnancy was well-documented and the effects of 
the treatment were self-evident, the reliance on historical controls in 
three key clinical trials--two conducted in France and one ongoing in 
the United States--was appropriate and consistent with FDA regulations. 
FDA issued an approvable letter in September 1996 concluding that the 
sponsor needed to provide additional information, such as the final 
data from the U.S. trial and a detailed plan to restrict the drug's 
distribution, before an approval decision could be made. The second 
review cycle began when the sponsor submitted a complete response to 
this letter. FDA issued a second approvable letter in February 2000 
after concluding that the new data confirmed the safety and efficacy of 
Mifeprex for the U.S. market but also that the sponsor needed to revise 
its distribution plan and address labeling and manufacturing 
deficiencies. In its final review, FDA deliberated about the 
distribution restrictions and conditions of use needed to assure the 
safe use of the drug. FDA concluded that termination of an unwanted 
pregnancy is a serious condition and that the drug can allow patients 
to avoid a surgical procedure and therefore Mifeprex fit within the 
scope of Subpart H. FDA further concluded that the drug could only be 
used safely if distribution was limited to qualified physicians. The 
sponsor argued that the drug did not treat a serious condition and that 
because they had voluntarily agreed to the restrictions FDA had 
requested, it was neither appropriate nor necessary to impose the 
restrictions under Subpart H. However, the sponsor eventually 
acquiesced to FDA's requirement that approval be under Subpart H. After 
FDA concluded that the sponsor had adequately revised its distribution 
plan and addressed the remaining issues identified in FDA's reviews, it 
approved the Mifeprex NDA under Subpart H with several restrictions. 
These included requiring that prescribing physicians attest to 
possessing specific skills, agree to fully discuss the treatment with 
patients, and agree to report certain adverse events to the sponsor; 
that the drug be distributed directly to physicians by an authorized 
distributor; and that patients attest to fully understanding the 
treatment and its potential complications. The drug was also approved 
subject to the sponsor's commitment to conduct two postmarket studies 
related to patient outcomes. 

The approval process for Mifeprex was generally consistent with the 
approval processes for the other eight Subpart H restricted drugs, but 
the details of FDA's approval process for each drug depended on the 
drug's unique risks and benefits. One common element across the 
approval processes for seven of the drugs, including Mifeprex, was that 
FDA needed to evaluate potential limitations--such as lack of 
concurrent controls or small sample sizes--in key clinical trials 
supporting the NDA. For some of these drugs other than Mifeprex, FDA 
concluded that there were weaknesses in the data submitted in the NDA 
that needed to be addressed. Another common element for six of the 
drugs, including Mifeprex, was that FDA issued at least one prior 
action letter before ultimately approving the drug for marketing under 
Subpart H. Additionally, the types of distribution restrictions that 
FDA imposed on Mifeprex were similar to those the agency imposed on the 
other drugs, though the details of the restrictions varied depending on 
the drug. Lastly, eight of the drugs, including Mifeprex, were approved 
with two or more postmarketing study commitments, each with one or more 
commitments related to adverse events or patient outcomes of interest. 

FDA's postmarket oversight of Mifeprex has been consistent with the 
agency's postmarket oversight of the other Subpart H restricted drugs. 
To oversee the drug sponsors' compliance with distribution 
restrictions, FDA has relied on data submitted by sponsors for all of 
the drugs. For three of the drugs, one of them Mifeprex, FDA has also 
completed inspections of the sponsor or its distributors. To oversee 
compliance with postmarketing study commitments, FDA has relied on 
updates in required reports from sponsors. Most of the drugs, including 
Mifeprex, have at least one study commitment that remains unfulfilled. 
To oversee compliance with adverse event reporting requirements, FDA 
has relied on sponsors' reports for all of the drugs and has also 
conducted inspections of the sponsor or its manufacturers for eight of 
them. FDA has cited the sponsors of seven of the drugs, including 
Mifeprex, for adverse event reporting deficiencies. To oversee the 
postmarket safety of all of the Subpart H restricted drugs, FDA has 
routinely conducted reviews of adverse event reports to monitor for 
safety concerns. In the case of Mifeprex, FDA investigated the deaths 
of six U.S. women who developed a fatal infection following treatment 
with Mifeprex for medical abortion. FDA has determined that in all six 
of the deaths, the women used a Mifeprex treatment regimen that has not 
been approved by FDA. Based on its investigations, FDA has concluded 
that a causal relationship between the use of Mifeprex and the fatal 
infections has not been established. FDA has also monitored other kinds 
of adverse events and has concluded that, with the exception of the 
cases of fatal infection, reported serious adverse events associated 
with Mifeprex have been within or below the ranges it expected. 
Additionally, for Mifeprex and the other drugs, FDA has taken similar 
actions--such as issuing warnings and requesting changes to the product 
labeling--to communicate safety information to consumers and health 
care providers. 

HHS reviewed a draft of this report and informed us that it did not 
have general comments. In addition, HHS provided technical comments 
which we incorporated as appropriate. 

Background: 

The Mifeprex NDA provided for the use of Mifeprex, in combination with 
another drug, for the medical termination of pregnancy. The treatment 
regimen described in the NDA involved taking Mifeprex orally, and then 
taking the drug misoprostol orally 2 days later unless termination of 
the pregnancy had already occurred.[Footnote 14] Patients return for a 
follow-up visit with their prescribing physician 2 weeks later to 
ensure that the termination of the pregnancy has been completed. The 
treatment regimen works by both interrupting the hormones that the body 
needs to maintain a pregnancy and inducing the uterine cramping 
necessary to cause a medical abortion. 

At the time that the drug sponsor submitted the Mifeprex NDA, in March 
1996, mifepristone had already been approved in multiple countries. The 
drug was first approved for the medical termination of pregnancy in 
France and China in 1988.[Footnote 15] It was approved subsequently in 
the United Kingdom in 1991, in Sweden in 1992, and various other 
European countries throughout the 1990s. In general, the treatment 
regimens approved in these countries were similar to those studied in 
the Mifeprex NDA, though in some cases the specific drug used in 
combination with mifepristone was different. 

FDA Application Review Process: 

FDA reviews drug applications to determine whether they provide 
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a drug is safe and effective 
for the proposed use, including whether the benefits of the drug 
outweigh its risks. FDA's formal process for new drug approval begins 
after a drug sponsor submits an application, typically following a long 
period of research and development. During a preliminary review, FDA 
determines whether the application is sufficiently complete to be 
reviewed and if so, designates it for either standard or priority 
review, depending on the therapeutic potential of the drug.[Footnote 
16] The agency then assigns a team of reviewers--including medical 
officers, chemists, statisticians, microbiologists, pharmacologists, 
and other experts--within the relevant FDA review division. This review 
team, which is usually led by a medical officer, conducts a 
comprehensive evaluation of the clinical and non-clinical information 
in the application including the safety and efficacy data for the drug, 
the design and quality of the studies used to support the application, 
and the proposed labeling for the drug and also reviews the results of 
inspections of the facilities where the drug is manufactured.[Footnote 
17] The review team compiles the results of its analyses and recommends 
either an approval, approvable, or not approvable action. 

FDA managers, usually including the review team's supervisor and senior 
management within the applicable review division, determine what action 
to take on an application, based on the recommendations of the review 
team. These managers examine the review team's analysis and 
individually decide whether to concur with the recommendation. The 
final decision on the action the agency should take is usually, but not 
always, made by the director of the applicable review division. In some 
cases, actions must be reviewed and agreed to by the relevant FDA 
office. 

This review process may span several cycles. For those applications not 
approved during the first review cycle--both approvable and not 
approvable--the second FDA review cycle begins once the sponsor submits 
an amendment to the application providing responses to the deficiencies 
FDA identified in its previous review. These amendments often contain 
additional studies, analyses, data, or clarifying information to 
address FDA's concerns. The responsible review team reviews the 
information provided by the sponsor, conducts any additional analyses 
that are required, reviews the results of any additional inspections 
that have been conducted, and again recommends either an approval, 
approvable, or not approvable action. As with the first review cycle, 
the process ends once FDA management reviews the recommendations of the 
review team and makes its decision on the action to take on the 
application. 

Restricting Drug Distribution and Subpart H Regulations: 

To address concerns FDA identifies regarding the safe use of a drug, 
the agency may condition approval by requiring that the sponsor agree 
to restrict the drug's distribution. FDA has established restricted 
distribution programs for approved drugs primarily by requiring that a 
drug's approval be under the restricted distribution provision of 
Subpart H regulations. According to the scope of the regulations, 
Subpart H applies to new drugs that "have been studied for their safety 
and effectiveness in treating serious or life-threatening illnesses and 
that provide meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over existing 
treatments" for the condition.[Footnote 18] FDA may approve a drug 
under the restricted distribution provision of these regulations if it 
meets these criteria and the agency concludes that the drug is 
effective but can be safely used only if distribution or use is 
restricted. For example, FDA may require that distribution of a drug be 
limited to certain facilities or physicians with special training. 

As of February 2007, nine drugs--Actiq, Accutane, Lotronex, Mifeprex, 
Plenaxis, Revlimid, Thalomid, Tracleer, and Xyrem--had either an NDA or 
supplemental NDA approved under the restricted distribution provision 
of Subpart H.[Footnote 19] For each of the drugs, either during the 
application review process or based on postmarket data, FDA identified 
concerns about the safe use of the drug that led the agency to apply 
Subpart H. The drugs were approved to treat a range of conditions, such 
as breakthrough cancer pain, specific symptoms of narcolepsy, and 
severe acne. 

FDA has also required that drug sponsors agree to restrict the 
distribution of drugs without imposing Subpart H. Clozaril, Tikosyn, 
and Trovan are three examples of drugs that have restricted 
distribution programs that were imposed outside of Subpart H. (See app. 
I for a table describing drugs FDA has approved with restricted 
distribution programs and the conditions they are intended to treat). 
While Clozaril was first approved in 1989, FDA imposed distribution 
restrictions on both Tikosyn and Trovan after Subpart H regulations had 
been promulgated. 

A second approval provision of Subpart H provides FDA with 
flexibilities that allow the agency to accelerate the approval process 
for drugs that provide meaningful therapeutic benefits over 
alternatives for serious or life-threatening illnesses.[Footnote 20] 
Specifically, under the provision, FDA may approve a drug on the basis 
of clinical trials establishing that the drug has an effect on a 
surrogate endpoint--such as weight gain or reduced occurrence of 
infections in patients with HIV--that is reasonably likely to predict a 
clinical benefit or on the basis of an effect on a clinical endpoint 
other than survival or irreversible morbidity.[Footnote 21] This allows 
FDA to approve a drug before measures of effectiveness that would 
usually be required for approval are available. However, under this 
approval provision, drug sponsors are ordinarily required to conduct 
postmarket studies to confirm and further describe the drug's clinical 
benefit. As of February 2007, FDA had used this provision to approve 52 
drugs, most of which are intended to treat HIV/AIDS or various cancers. 

FDA's Role in Postmarket Oversight: 

Because some risks may not become known until after a drug's approval 
and use in a wider segment of the population, FDA has a range of 
postmarket oversight responsibilities once a drug is approved for 
marketing in the United States. FDA's postmarket oversight 
responsibilities include assessing sponsors' compliance with 
requirements for a given drug, such as postmarketing study commitments, 
adverse event reporting, and restricted distribution requirements. In 
addition, FDA monitors reported adverse events to assess the postmarket 
safety of approved drugs and may take action if it develops a concern 
about a drug's safety. 

With regard to postmarketing study commitments, FDA oversees sponsors' 
compliance with regulations that require sponsors of all approved drugs 
to report to FDA annually on their progress in meeting the commitments. 
FDA requires that sponsors report on the status of these studies in an 
annual report that also includes updates on the distribution of the 
drug, labeling changes, clinical literature published on the drug, and 
the drug's marketing.[Footnote 22] FDA designates unfulfilled study 
commitments as submitted, pending, ongoing, delayed, released, or 
terminated. 

FDA also oversees sponsors' compliance with regulations that require 
sponsors of all approved drugs to report periodically to FDA on safety 
information and specific types of adverse events that occur in 
association with an approved drug.[Footnote 23] Sponsors must provide 
in periodic reports (quarterly for the first 3 years after approval and 
annually thereafter) a narrative summary and analysis of adverse event 
information. For adverse events that are considered both serious and 
unexpected,[Footnote 24] sponsors are required to submit a report-- 
known as a "Postmarketing 15-day Alert Report"--to FDA within 15 
calendar days from the time the sponsor was informed of the event. To 
assess sponsors' compliance with these adverse event reporting 
requirements, FDA reviews sponsors' reports and conducts inspections of 
the sponsors' reporting policies and procedures. 

For drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of 
Subpart H, FDA oversees sponsors' compliance with the restrictions 
placed on the drugs' distribution or use. To assess compliance with 
restrictions, FDA reviews information such as summaries of sponsors' 
distribution programs in annual reports and in some cases separate 
reports required by the agency to provide details and updates on 
distribution programs. In addition, FDA may conduct inspections of a 
sponsor's corporate headquarters, manufacturing sites, or contractors, 
such as specialty distributors, to evaluate whether distribution 
policies and procedures comply with the approved restrictions for a 
given drug. If FDA identifies deficiencies during an inspection, it may 
issue a formal citation--known as a Form FDA 483. In addition, FDA may 
communicate less serious findings as written or oral "observations" or 
"recommendations."[Footnote 25] 

To monitor postmarket safety of approved drugs, FDA reviews clinical 
literature, routinely evaluates the available data on reported adverse 
events, and conducts investigations of the nature and patterns of these 
events. FDA compiles data from sponsor's reports on adverse events, 
along with data from voluntary reports submitted to the MedWatch 
program, in its Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) 
database.[Footnote 26] FDA safety evaluators analyze data from AERS and 
in the clinical literature to detect signs of potential safety 
concerns. These evaluations may reveal the need for further studies of 
a drug or may result in FDA action to ensure the safety of the 
drug.[Footnote 27] 

If FDA identifies problems with a sponsor's compliance with agency 
requirements or identifies postmarket safety concerns, the agency can 
take a range of actions to address the concern and communicate safety 
information to healthcare providers and the public. For example, FDA 
may revise the restrictions on a drug's distribution, request changes 
to a drug's labeling, issue patient advisories or public health alerts, 
or request that a sponsor issue letters to health care providers or 
pharmacists to alert them to safety concerns. FDA may also issue a 
regulatory letter citing violations of laws or regulations. Typically, 
FDA issues a Warning letter for violations that may lead FDA to pursue 
further enforcement action if not corrected or issues an untitled 
letter for violations that do not meet this threshold. FDA also has the 
authority to withdraw a drug's marketing approval for safety-related 
and other reasons,[Footnote 28] although it rarely does so. 
Additionally, Subpart H regulations establish an expedited process for 
withdrawing a drug's marketing approval, in certain 
circumstances.[Footnote 29] 

FDA Approved Mifeprex under the Subpart H Restricted Distribution 
Provision After Concluding That Clinical Evidence Supported Its Safety 
and Efficacy: 

FDA approved Mifeprex after three review cycles. In its initial review, 
FDA concluded that reliance on historical controls in three key 
clinical trials was appropriate and consistent with FDA regulations and 
that the available data supported the safety and efficacy of the drug. 
In an approvable letter, FDA notified the sponsor that it needed to 
provide additional data and more detail on its proposal to restrict the 
drug's distribution before an approval decision could be made. A second 
review cycle began when the sponsor submitted data responding to this 
letter. The agency issued a second approvable letter after finding that 
new data confirmed Mifeprex's safety and efficacy but also that the 
sponsor needed to revise its distribution plan and address labeling and 
manufacturing deficiencies. FDA further concluded that the drug was a 
candidate for approval under Subpart H. In the final review cycle, FDA 
concluded that the sponsor's revised distribution plan and other 
revisions were sufficient to address FDA's comments. FDA also concluded 
that Mifeprex met the scope of Subpart H and that approval under the 
restricted distribution provision of Subpart H was necessary to ensure 
that only qualified physicians prescribed the drug. On September 28, 
2000, FDA approved Mifeprex under the restricted distribution provision 
of Subpart H with several restrictions and two postmarketing study 
commitments. (See table 1 for a timeline of key events in the Mifeprex 
approval process.) 

Table 1: Timeline of Key Events in FDA's Approval of Mifeprex: 

Date: First review cycle: March 1996; 
Event: The sponsor submitted a new drug application (NDA) for the use 
of Mifeprex in combination with the drug misoprostol for the medical 
termination of intrauterine pregnancy. 

Date: First review cycle: July 1996; 
Event: FDA Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee meeting. 

Date: First review cycle: September 1996; 
Event: FDA issued an approvable letter listing issues that the sponsor 
needed to address before the application could be approved. 

Date: Second review cycle: August 1999; 
Event: After delays securing a manufacturer, the sponsor completed its 
responses to FDA's 1996 approvable letter. 

Date: Second review cycle: February 2000; 
Event: FDA issued a second approvable letter, listing issues that the 
sponsor needed to address prior to approval. 

Date: Third review cycle: March 2000; 
Event: The sponsor completes its responses to FDA's second approvable 
letter. 

Date: Third review cycle: September 2000; 
Event: FDA approved Mifeprex under the restricted distribution 
provision of Subpart H. 

Date: Third review cycle: November 2000; 
Event: Distribution of Mifeprex began in the United States. 

Source: GAO analysis of FDA and drug sponsor data. 

[End of table] 

FDA's Initial Review Cycle and Approvable Action (March to September 
1996): 

FDA's initial review began when the drug sponsor submitted the Mifeprex 
NDA in March 1996. After conducting a preliminary review of the NDA, 
FDA designated the application for priority review, establishing a goal 
that the agency would issue an action letter within 6 months. FDA's 
rationale for the designation was that as the first drug that would be 
approved for its particular indication, Mifeprex was a therapeutic 
advance because women using the drug could potentially avoid the risks 
of surgery and anesthesia involved in a surgical termination of a 
pregnancy. 

FDA assigned a team of reviewers within the Division of Reproductive 
and Urologic Drug Products to review the evidence in the Mifeprex NDA. 
The key safety and efficacy data in the NDA consisted of three 
historically controlled clinical trials, two conducted in France and 
one conducted in the United States. These trials studied the Mifeprex 
treatment regimen--mifepristone in combination with misoprostol--in a 
total of more than 4,000 women. At the time the NDA was submitted, the 
French trials were complete and the U.S. trial was ongoing. As a 
result, during the first review cycle, the review team analyzed the 
complete safety and efficacy data from the French clinical trials, but 
only summary data on serious adverse events from the U.S. clinical 
trial. FDA reviewers also considered results from other trials 
conducted in Europe from 1983 through 1996 in which mifepristone was 
studied either alone or in combination with misoprostol or similar 
drugs. In addition, the review team considered safety information from 
extensive postmarketing experience in Europe, including a postmarket 
safety database containing information on women who had used 
mifepristone. Lastly, the review team considered the non-clinical data 
in the application, including data on the drug's chemistry and 
manufacturing. 

In its review of the Mifeprex data, FDA reviewers determined that the 
reliance on historical controls in the key clinical trials was 
appropriate and consistent with FDA regulation. According to FDA, 
historical control designs can make it more difficult to evaluate which 
effects can be attributed to the drug being studied.[Footnote 30] 
However, FDA regulations list historical controls as an acceptable type 
of control when the natural history of the condition being treated is 
well-documented and when the effects of the drug are self- 
evident.[Footnote 31] In the case of the Mifeprex NDA, FDA determined 
that the historically controlled trials provided substantial evidence 
of safety and efficacy because the outcomes of women taking the 
Mifeprex regimen were compared with the well-documented data on the 
natural course of pregnancy, including rates of miscarriage, and the 
effect of the drug--termination of a pregnancy--was obvious.[Footnote 
32] 

To assist the review team in its assessment of Mifeprex, FDA convened 
the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee in July 1996 and asked 
the members to examine the data and vote on their conclusions regarding 
the drug's safety and efficacy. Six of the eight voting members voted, 
with two abstentions, that the available evidence demonstrated that the 
benefits of the regimen outweighed its risks for the proposed 
indication in the United States. However, the members agreed 
unanimously that FDA should provide the final safety and efficacy data 
from the U.S. clinical trial for their review. The advisory committee 
also discussed the basic elements of a voluntary restricted 
distribution system proposed by the drug's sponsor, which would require 
that Mifeprex be distributed directly to physicians, that prescribing 
physicians meet certain training requirements, and that patients meet 
certain conditions before receiving the drug. The advisory committee 
voted unanimously that they agreed with the concept of restricting 
distribution of the drug but had reservations about how the proposed 
system would assure that physicians had adequate credentials. The 
members recommended that the sponsor conduct postmarket studies to 
address six unanswered questions about the treatment regimen and the 
distribution system. The members also provided extensive comments on 
the draft labeling proposed by the sponsor. 

The FDA review team concluded that the NDA was approvable, based on its 
assessment of the clinical and non-clinical data and the input from the 
advisory committee. The medical officer leading the review team 
concluded that the available clinical data indicated "that medical 
abortion can be safely delivered in a wide variety of United States 
settings." The data from the French trials showed the treatment to be 
roughly 95 percent effective at terminating pregnancy through 49 days 
gestation. The data from the French clinical trials also showed that 
almost all patients experienced some side effects--such as uterine 
cramping and bleeding--most of which were expected based on the way the 
drug works. Though serious adverse events were considered rare, some 
women experienced bleeding that required medical intervention, and 
approximately 0.2 percent of patients required transfusion. The medical 
officer concluded that the preliminary U.S. data on adverse events did 
not appear to differ significantly from the French trials.[Footnote 33] 

In September 1996, FDA issued an approvable letter for the use of 
Mifeprex in combination with the drug misoprostol for the termination 
of intrauterine pregnancy up to 49 days gestation. In memos documenting 
concurrence with the review team, and in the approvable letter itself, 
FDA management outlined the clinical and non-clinical issues the 
sponsor needed to address prior to approval. First, the full data from 
the U.S. clinical trial were needed to establish safety and efficacy of 
the Mifeprex regimen in the U.S. health care setting. Second, FDA 
agreed with the sponsor's proposal to limit the drug's distribution, 
but the sponsor had not yet submitted sufficient detail on how it would 
be implemented to allow for the plan to be fully evaluated.[Footnote 
34] Third, the drug labeling proposed by the sponsor needed to be 
revised to provide more information on the treatment and to address 
comments from the advisory committee. Fourth, the sponsor would need to 
commit to pursue the postmarket studies suggested by the advisory 
committee. Finally, the sponsor would need to address certain 
deficiencies in chemistry and manufacturing data identified in FDA's 
review. 

FDA's Second Review Cycle and Approvable Action (August 1999 to 
February 2000): 

FDA's second review cycle for the Mifeprex NDA officially began once 
the sponsor had completed its responses to the first approvable letter. 
However, these responses were delayed because of difficulties the 
sponsor encountered in securing a manufacturer for the drug product. In 
the interim, the sponsor submitted a range of data to FDA, including 
the final safety and efficacy results from the U.S. clinical trial, 
updated safety data from other trials of mifepristone and international 
postmarketing experience with the drug, formal revisions of the product 
labeling, and outstanding chemistry and manufacturing data. In August 
1999, the sponsor completed its responses to the approvable letter by 
submitting an overview of the key principles of the restricted 
distribution system as well as responses to the postmarketing study 
commitments. At the time of this submission, the sponsor was still 
working with its planned distributor on the details of the restricted 
distribution system. 

Based on the updated data, the review team recommended approval for the 
Mifeprex NDA once the sponsor had clarified the details of the drug's 
distribution, revised the drug labeling, and addressed deficiencies in 
the chemistry and manufacturing data. The medical officer concluded 
that the final results from the U.S. clinical trial were acceptable and 
confirmed the results of the French trials that the regimen was safe 
and effective.[Footnote 35] The medical officer concluded that the 
comments from the July 1996 advisory committee meeting were fully 
considered and, to the extent possible, implemented.[Footnote 36] The 
medical officer also concluded that additional detail was needed to 
determine whether the sponsor's proposed distribution plan was 
sufficient. The non-clinical reviews during this review cycle--which 
included inspections of manufacturing facilities[Footnote 37]-- 
identified deficiencies in the drug's chemistry data and manufacturing 
processes that needed to be addressed, as well as sections of the 
drug's labeling that needed to be revised. 

In January 2000, the sponsor submitted a more detailed plan describing 
how the proposed distribution restrictions would be implemented. The 
plan had three key elements. First, the Mifeprex regimen would only be 
administered under the supervision of qualified physicians who had 
agreed to provide the treatment according to several guidelines. 
Specifically, prescribing physicians would be required to attest to 
being able to accurately assess the duration of a pregnancy, diagnose 
an ectopic pregnancy,[Footnote 38] and assure that patients have access 
to appropriate follow up care if needed to manage complications. The 
physicians would also need to agree to fully explain the procedure to 
each patient and obtain her signed consent, record the unique product 
serial number for tracking purposes, and report any serious adverse 
event or on-going pregnancy to the sponsor. Second, the drug would only 
be distributed directly to physicians after an authorized distributor 
had verified that the physician had registered with it and had a signed 
attestation on file. Third, patients would be required to meet certain 
conditions before receiving the drug, such as signing a patient 
agreement attesting to her understanding of the potential complications 
of the treatment. 

FDA management concluded that the proposed distribution plan did not 
provide for adequate training and certification of prescribing 
physicians and needed to be revised before the NDA could be approved. 
In February 2000, FDA issued a second approvable letter for Mifeprex, 
notifying the sponsor that it needed to revise its proposed 
distribution plan, address deficiencies in the drug's chemistry data 
and manufacturing, and revise the drug's labeling. The letter also 
stated that FDA had considered the application under the restricted 
distribution provision of Subpart H and that distribution restrictions 
would be necessary in order to assure the safe use of the drug. The 
approvable letter further reminded the sponsor of its commitment to 
pursue postmarketing study commitments to address questions that were 
raised at the time of the advisory committee meeting. 

FDA's Final Review Cycle and Marketing Approval for Mifeprex (March to 
September 2000): 

In March 2000, the sponsor submitted its complete response to FDA's 
February 2000 approvable letter. This submission included updated 
safety data from ongoing trials and international postmarket 
experience, international product labeling, and revisions to the 
distribution plan. The sponsor also provided additional data and 
revisions--including updated chemistry and manufacturing data, a 
revision to the distribution plan, and revised labeling--to address 
comments from FDA that arose during the review cycle. The agency's 
review of these submissions included multiple meetings and 
teleconferences with the sponsor and input from a consultant who was a 
special government employee (SGE) and a member of the Reproductive 
Health Drugs Advisory Committee.[Footnote 39] 

During the final review cycle, FDA's deliberations--which involved a 
wide range of agency staff and management, including at times the 
Commissioner--focused on four key issues: whether prescribing 
physicians should be required to participate in a formal training and 
certification program, whether to require that approval be under 
Subpart H, what conditions of use should be specified, and what 
postmarketing study commitments would be needed to assure the safe use 
of the drug. 

* Physician Training: In its deliberations, FDA considered requiring 
that physicians participate in specific training and have their 
qualifications certified before being allowed to prescribe Mifeprex, as 
opposed to relying on the sponsor's proposed system of self- 
attestation. However, FDA concluded that such a requirement was not 
necessary. FDA officials told us that the agency determined that its 
concern about ensuring that prescribers were adequately qualified could 
be addressed by requiring that the sponsor make educational materials 
and training programs readily available and requiring that prescribing 
physicians sign an agreement attesting to their qualifications. The SGE 
consultant agreed with this conclusion. FDA officials also told us that 
the agency wanted to minimize the burden that the restricted 
distribution program would place on providers and patients by requiring 
only what was necessary to address safety concerns.[Footnote 40] 

In July 2000, the sponsor submitted its revised distribution plan. This 
plan addressed FDA's comments by providing increased emphasis in the 
product labeling on the educational materials and trainings available 
to physicians and the importance of participating in the training. The 
other key elements of the plan--including the specific qualifications 
that physicians were required to meet and agreements regarding 
discussing the treatment and adverse event reporting--were essentially 
unchanged from those the sponsor proposed in its January 2000 plan. 

* Approval under Subpart H Regulations: FDA had maintained through the 
first two review cycles that distribution restrictions would be 
required for Mifeprex. However, minutes from meetings between FDA and 
the sponsor indicate that the agency was still considering whether it 
was necessary to impose those restrictions under Subpart H during the 
final review cycle. During the second review cycle, FDA had concluded 
that the restricted distribution provision could be applied to 
Mifeprex.[Footnote 41] FDA eventually concluded that it would be 
necessary to do so. In its documented rationale for this conclusion, 
FDA stated that the drug met the scope of the regulations because the 
termination of an unwanted pregnancy is a serious condition, and that 
the drug provided a meaningful therapeutic benefit over existing 
therapies by allowing patients to avoid the procedure required with 
surgical termination of pregnancy. FDA officials told us that the 
agency has broad discretion to determine which conditions or illnesses 
may be considered serious or life threatening, and that in the case of 
Mifeprex it considered the potential in any pregnancy for serious or 
life-threatening complications--such as hemorrhage--in its 
determination.[Footnote 42] Additionally, FDA concluded that Mifeprex 
could only be used safely if distribution was limited to physicians who 
could assess the duration of a pregnancy, diagnose an ectopic 
pregnancy, and provide patients with access to surgical intervention if 
necessary. 

Throughout the approval process, the sponsor was opposed to approval 
under Subpart H. Specifically, the sponsor argued that the drug did not 
fit within the scope of Subpart H because pregnancy itself is not a 
serious or life threatening illness. The sponsor also argued that the 
intent of the restricted distribution provision was to allow for 
restricted distribution of highly toxic or risky drugs, and that 
Mifeprex did not fit this description.[Footnote 43] The sponsor also 
expressed concern that approving the drug under Subpart H could 
unfairly mark Mifeprex as risky and deter women from using the drug. 
Lastly, the sponsor held that imposing Subpart H was unnecessary 
because it had voluntarily committed to the distribution restrictions 
requested by FDA. However, in a September 2000 letter to FDA, the 
sponsor agreed to FDA's requirement that approval be under Subpart H, 
while noting that it still believed that applying these regulations to 
Mifeprex was not appropriate. 

* Conditions of Use: FDA reviewed data and held multiple meetings with 
the sponsor regarding the specific conditions of use that should be 
required for Mifeprex. For example, FDA deliberated about whether it 
was necessary to require that prescribing physicians possess the 
ability to perform follow-up surgical interventions in the event that 
it was necessary to manage complications. The sponsor maintained that 
such a requirement was inconsistent with the practice of medicine, 
because management of incomplete miscarriages was routinely handled by 
referring patients to outside providers with specialized surgical or 
emergency care training. On this issue, FDA concluded that access to 
follow-up care could be ensured by requiring adequate information in 
the labeling and requiring that physicians attest to having made 
arrangements for their patients to have access to any needed surgical 
or emergency care. The SGE consultant agreed with FDA's conclusion. FDA 
disagreed with the sponsor on other suggested conditions of use. For 
example, the sponsor provided data to support allowing patients to self-
administer the misoprostol dose at home, instead of requiring them to 
return to their prescribing physicians. FDA concluded that the 
available data did not support the safety of home use of misoprostol 
and that such use should not be included in the final product label. As 
a part of its deliberations about the conditions of use, FDA also 
concluded that approved labeling should include a medication guide to 
provide patients with information about the risks and benefits of the 
drug and the approved conditions of use and treatment regimen.[Footnote 
44] 

* Postmarketing Study Commitments: In both the September 1996 and 
February 2000 approvable letters, FDA had reminded the sponsor of its 
commitment to conduct a series of six postmarket studies to address 
comments raised in the 1996 advisory committee meeting. FDA reviewed 
data and met with the sponsor during the final stages of its review to 
revisit these commitments in light of experience gained with the 
treatment regimen since the advisory committee meeting, concerns about 
potential infringement on the privacy of patients, and the potential 
resources needed to fulfill all six commitments. FDA concluded that the 
originally proposed commitments could be sufficiently addressed in two 
redesigned studies. The first was a study on the safety outcomes of a 
group of patients receiving the treatment under the care of physicians 
with surgical intervention skills compared to physicians who refer 
their patients for surgical intervention when necessary. The second was 
a surveillance study to determine the outcomes of ongoing pregnancies 
that were not surgically terminated after a failure of the Mifeprex 
regimen, including the health of any children born. FDA also concluded 
that the outstanding questions could be incorporated into the two 
postmarket studies and an audit of signed patient agreement forms. 

Once the sponsor had addressed the issues that FDA raised during the 
third review cycle, both the review team responsible for the Mifeprex 
NDA and FDA management concluded that the drug should be approved. The 
medical officer concluded that the updated safety data did not reveal 
any new issues that would change the ratio of benefit-to-risk for the 
drug. The medical officer also reviewed revised product labeling 
related to the distribution of the drug. Based on these reviews, the 
medical officer recommended approval of the application. The non- 
clinical reviews during this review cycle included additional 
inspections of manufacturing facilities. After the sponsor had 
addressed several issues, including deficiencies identified in a second 
inspection of the drug manufacturing facilities, the non-clinical 
reviewers also recommended approval of the application. FDA management 
concurred with the recommendations of the review team that the Mifeprex 
NDA should be approved. 

On September 28, 2000, FDA approved Mifeprex under the restricted 
distribution provision of Subpart H. The sponsor began distribution of 
Mifeprex in November 2000. FDA approved the drug with the two 
postmarketing study commitments discussed above and with several key 
restrictions on distribution. First, prescribing physicians must sign a 
prescriber's agreement attesting to possessing the training and skills 
needed to administer the treatment regimen, and also agreeing to 
provide patients with the approved medication guide. They must also 
attest that they will fully discuss the treatment with patients and 
report to the sponsor any serious adverse events or ongoing pregnancies 
that are not terminated after a failure of the Mifeprex regimen. 
Second, the drug must be distributed directly to prescribing physicians 
by an authorized distributor only after the distributor has verified 
that the physician has a signed agreement on file. Third, patients must 
sign a patient agreement attesting to having read, discussed, and 
understood the risks and potential complications of the treatment. For 
a more detailed list of the individual components of the restricted 
distribution program for Mifeprex, see appendix II. For a copy of the 
approved prescriber's agreement, see appendix III. 

Approval Process for Mifeprex Was Generally Consistent with That of the 
Other Eight Subpart H Restricted Drugs: 

Although each drug had unique risks and benefits, the approval process 
for Mifeprex was generally consistent with the approval processes for 
the other eight Subpart H restricted drugs. Each of the drugs had 
unique risks and benefits that were specific to their indication and 
target populations. For some of the drugs, the safety issues that 
prompted FDA to apply Subpart H were similar, with the potential for 
causing birth defects, the potential for liver or other serious 
toxicities, and appropriate patient selection being the most common 
issues. However, there were also safe use concerns that were unique to 
particular drugs. For example, for Mifeprex, ensuring patient access to 
follow-up care was a key safety concern, while for Actiq a key concern 
was ensuring that children did not accidentally ingest the 
drug.[Footnote 45] Each of the drugs represented potential advances in 
the treatment of their targeted condition and in two cases--Mifeprex 
and Xyrem--the drug was the first approved to treat that condition. 
(See app. I for a table including each of the Subpart H restricted 
drugs and their approved indications.) 

One common element across the approval processes for the Subpart H 
restricted drugs was that for seven of the drugs, including Mifeprex, 
FDA needed to evaluate potential limitations in key clinical data 
supporting the NDA. Specifically, with the exception of Accutane and 
Lotronex, the drugs were approved on the basis of studies without 
concurrent controls or data that were limited by relatively small 
sample sizes or data collection issues.[Footnote 46] FDA approved the 
Mifeprex NDA on the basis of historically controlled clinical trials 
that studied the drug in several thousand patients. FDA concluded that 
the use of historical controls was not a limitation because the course 
of pregnancy was well-documented and the effect of the treatment was 
self-evident. Revlimid, Thalomid, Plenaxis, and Xyrem were also each 
approved on the basis of data that included at least one key clinical 
study that lacked a concurrent control.[Footnote 47] In contrast to the 
Mifeprex data, FDA concluded that the lack of concurrent controls in 
these studies was a weakness because data on the course of the disease 
in a comparable population was not available to be used as a reliable 
historical control. For example, Thalomid was approved on the basis of 
clinical trial data from the published literature as well as a series 
of retrospective case studies for several dozen patients.[Footnote 48] 
Additionally, five of the drugs--Actiq, Revlimid, Thalomid, Tracleer, 
and Xyrem--were approved on the basis of key clinical studies with 
relatively small sample sizes of several hundred patients or less. 
Finally, for Actiq, Plenaxis, Thalomid, and Xyrem, FDA identified data 
collection issues, such as incomplete documentation, in some of the key 
data sources. 

Another common element was that for six of the drugs, including 
Mifeprex, FDA issued at least one prior action letter before ultimately 
approving the drug for marketing. FDA issued one approvable letter 
before ultimately approving Thalomid and Tracleer. Both Mifeprex and 
Xyrem received two approvable letters. In some cases the types of 
issues FDA cited--such as insufficient safety or efficacy data, the 
need for additional information on the restricted distribution system, 
or chemistry and manufacturing issues--were similar. For all four of 
these drugs, the adequacy of proposed distribution restrictions was a 
significant issue. For Xyrem, FDA's initial approvable action was also 
linked to the sufficiency of the data provided in the application. FDA 
issued not approvable letters for both Actiq and Plenaxis prior to 
their eventual approval. In the case of Actiq, FDA cited multiple 
deficiencies, such as reliance on a key clinical study with flaws and 
an inadequate plan for risk management. For Plenaxis, FDA initially 
concluded that the risks of the drug exceeded its benefits because of 
the potential for severe, systemic allergic reactions in patients. 

As a result of these complexities, the approval process for the Subpart 
H restricted drugs was typically longer than the process for other 
drugs. Across the seven drugs with NDAs approved under Subpart H, an 
average of almost 25 months elapsed from the time that the sponsor 
submitted its NDA to the time FDA approved the NDA. The length of time 
to approval ranged from almost 9 months for Revlimid to more than 54 
months for Mifeprex. In comparison, in analyses conducted for our 2006 
report on new drug development, we found that it took FDA on average 
almost 18 months to approve NDAs submitted from 1996 through 
2002.[Footnote 49] 

We also found that the types of distribution restrictions FDA imposed 
on Mifeprex were similar to those imposed on the other Subpart H 
restricted drugs, though the specifics of the restrictions depended on 
FDA's safe use concern for the drug.[Footnote 50] (See table 2.) For 
all of the drugs except Actiq, FDA required some form of program 
enrollment or registration process. For example, for Mifeprex and three 
other drugs, FDA required that patients sign written agreements and 
that physicians enroll in a prescribing program and attest to their 
qualifications. For five of the drugs, FDA required formal registries 
of all prescribing physicians and patients.[Footnote 51] Additionally, 
for seven of the drugs, FDA required that distribution be limited to 
authorized distributors or pharmacies.[Footnote 52] And for eight of 
the drugs, FDA required that the sponsor establish a process to ensure 
that dispensing or distribution of the drug was contingent on 
verification that physicians and others had enrolled or registered in 
the distribution program, or that patients had complied with certain 
safety measures. FDA also required that all of the sponsors implement 
some form of educational program for patients, prescribers, or 
pharmacists, though FDA did not require that prescribing physicians 
participate in formal training for any of the drugs. For six of the 
nine drugs, FDA required that the sponsor report periodically to the 
agency specifically on implementation of their restricted distribution 
programs. For seven of the drugs, FDA required that sponsors report to 
the agency on specific adverse events--such as fetal exposures or liver 
toxicity--more frequently than is required for other drugs. In the case 
of Mifeprex and Xyrem, at the time the drugs were approved, FDA did not 
require that the sponsors submit additional adverse event reports 
beyond those required for all approved drugs, but did require that 
physicians agree to report specific types of adverse events to the 
sponsor. 

Table 2: Selected Features of Restricted Distribution Programs Imposed 
by FDA at Time of Approval under Subpart H: 

Features Required at Approval: Program enrollment or registration[A]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Empty]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Check]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali- domide): [Check]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Features Required at Approval: Limited distribution channels[B]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Empty]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Empty]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Check]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali- domide): [Check]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Features Required at Approval: Dispensing or distribution contingent on 
verification[C]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Empty]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Check]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali-domide): [Check]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Features Required at Approval: Sponsor developed educational 
programs[D]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro- chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Check]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Check]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali- domide): [Check]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Features Required at Approval: Reporting specific to implementation of 
restricted distribution program; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Empty]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Check]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Empty]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali-domide): [Empty]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Features Required at Approval: Additional adverse event reporting by 
the sponsor[E]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Empty]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Check]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Empty]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali-domide): [Check]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Source: GAO analysis of FDA data. 

[A] Program enrollment or registration requirements varied across the 
drugs. For Accutane, Lotronex, Mifeprex, and Plenaxis, FDA required 
that physicians enroll in a prescribing program and attest to their 
qualifications. For Accutane, Revlimid, Thalomid, Tracleer, and Xyrem, 
FDA required formal registries of all prescribing physicians and 
patients. FDA also required registration of pharmacies, wholesalers, or 
distributors for Thalomid, Revlimid, and Accutane. 

[B] The specific limitations imposed on distribution channels varied 
across the drugs, and in some cases more than one limitation was 
required. These limitations included, for example, requiring that a 
drug only be distributed directly to prescribing physicians, allowing 
only authorized distributors or wholesalers to ship a drug, and 
allowing only registered or centralized pharmacies to dispense a drug. 

[C] The verification mechanisms varied across the drugs. For example, 
for Mifeprex, an authorized distributor must verify that a physician 
has a signed prescriber agreement on file before distributing the drug. 
For Lotronex, before dispensing and drug, pharmacists must verify that 
prescriptions include a sticker that is only available to physicians 
enrolled in the prescribing program. For Accutane, Revlimid, and 
Thalomid, a registered pharmacy is required to confirm prescription 
authorizations and that patients have complied with requirements to use 
one or more methods of contraception before dispensing the drug. 

[D] In general, sponsors were required to develop educational materials 
(such as patient information videos) for patients, and make educational 
materials and training programs readily available to prescribing 
physicians, pharmacists, and other groups involved in the restricted 
distribution program. For some of the drugs, dispensing pharmacists 
were required to participate in formal training. At the time of Subpart 
H approval, FDA required medication guides for all of the drugs except 
Actiq, Plenaxis, and Thalomid. 

[E] Sponsors for seven of the drugs were required to submit 15-day 
alert reports on specific adverse events. Sponsors of four of the drugs 
were required to provide updates more frequently than typically 
required for events related to FDA's safe use concern for the drug. For 
Mifeprex, as part of their prescriber agreement, physicians agreed to 
report ongoing pregnancies, hospitalizations, transfusions, and other 
serious events to the sponsor. For Xyrem, FDA required that physicians 
agree to collect and report to the sponsor information on specific 
adverse events and inappropriate use of the drug. 

[End of table] 

Finally, eight of the nine Subpart H restricted drugs were approved 
with two or more postmarketing study commitments.[Footnote 53] Each of 
these had at least one commitment that involved developing a postmarket 
study to monitor adverse events or patient outcomes of interest for 
that drug. The number of study commitments FDA required ranged from 2 
to 10, depending on the drug. Additionally, for most of the drugs, 
including Mifeprex, the study protocols for the various commitments had 
not been finalized at the time of approval. 

FDA's Postmarket Oversight of Mifeprex Has Been Consistent with the 
Agency's Oversight of the Other Subpart H Restricted Drugs: 

The actions FDA has taken to oversee Mifeprex have been consistent with 
the actions it has taken to oversee the other Subpart H restricted 
drugs. FDA has relied primarily on information submitted by the 
sponsors of all the Subpart H restricted drugs and inspections for 
three of the drugs to oversee compliance with restricted distribution 
requirements. FDA has also relied on updates submitted by these 
sponsors to oversee compliance with postmarketing study commitments and 
has found that most have unfulfilled commitments. To oversee compliance 
with adverse event reporting requirements, FDA has reviewed a variety 
of safety information including reports submitted by the sponsors of 
all nine of the drugs restricted under Subpart H and has conducted 
inspections to evaluate compliance with reporting of adverse events for 
eight of the drugs. As a result, for most of the drugs, FDA has 
identified deficiencies in compliance with adverse event reporting 
requirements. To oversee reported adverse events FDA has used similar 
methods--such as monitoring, investigating, and addressing safety 
concerns--for Mifeprex and the other eight Subpart H restricted drugs. 
As a result of its oversight of safety data, FDA has identified 
postmarket safety concerns for most of the drugs and has used a variety 
of methods to communicate safety information to health care providers 
and the public. (See table 3 for an overview of FDA's postmarket 
oversight of these drugs.) 

Table 3: Selected Features of FDA's Oversight of Postmarket Safety for 
Drugs Approved under Subpart H, as of May 2008: 

Oversight Activities and Findings: FDA has completed inspection(s) to 
oversee compliance with distribution restriction requirements[A]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Empty]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Empty]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Empty]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Check]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Empty]; 
Revlimid (lenali-domide): [Empty]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Empty]. 

Oversight Activities and Findings: FDA has classified at least one 
postmarketing study commitment as unfulfilled[B]; 
Mifeprex (mife- pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Check]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Empty]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali-domide): [Check]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): n/a. 

Oversight Activities and Findings: FDA has conducted inspection(s) to 
oversee compliance with adverse event reporting requirements[C]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Check]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Check]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Check]; 
Revlimid (lenali-domide): [Empty]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Oversight Activities and Findings: FDA has identified a postmarket 
safety concern leading to communication of new safety information to 
public or health care providers[D]; 
Mifeprex (mife-pristone): [Check]; 
Lotronex (alosetron hydro-chloride): [Check]; 
Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate): [Check]; 
Thalomid (thalidomide): [Check]; 
Tracleer (bosentan): [Check]; 
Xyrem (sodium oxybate): [Check]; 
Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension): [Empty]; 
Revlimid (lenali-domide): [Check]; 
Accutane (isotretinoin): [Check]. 

Source: GAO analysis of FDA data. 

Note: FDA provided or confirmed data on these selected features of 
oversight through May 2008. 

[A] In May 2008, FDA officials told us that they had conducted such 
inspections for three additional drugs. However, the reports from those 
inspections were not yet available. Inspections were in addition to 
report review. 

[B] FDA classifies unfulfilled postmarketing study commitments as 
ongoing, pending, delayed, released, or terminated; 
FDA has documented that the sponsor for Xyrem has fulfilled two of its 
postmarketing study commitments and has submitted the final report for 
the third and final commitment. 

[C] Inspections were in addition to report review conducted for all of 
the drugs. In the case of Revlimid, FDA inspected Celgene--the sponsor 
of both Revlimid and Thalomid--before Revlimid was approved in December 
2005. 

[D] Communication of new safety information includes activities such as 
changing product labeling, issuing Public Health Advisories and Safety 
Alerts, and distributing letters to health care providers. 

[End of table] 

To Oversee Compliance with Distribution Restrictions, FDA Relied on 
Information Submitted by All Drug Sponsors and Its Own Inspections for 
Some of the Drugs, Including Mifeprex: 

For all nine of the drugs that have been approved under the restricted 
distribution provision of Subpart H, FDA has relied mainly on 
information submitted by sponsors in required reports to oversee the 
sponsors' compliance with distribution restrictions. For six of the 
drugs--not including Mifeprex--FDA relied on reports specific to the 
drugs' restricted distribution programs.[Footnote 54] The type of 
information provided by the sponsors in these documents included data 
on the operation of the restricted distribution program, such as 
requirements for distributors, pharmacies, prescribers, and patients 
participating in the program. In addition, to oversee compliance with 
the restricted distribution programs for most of the drugs--including 
Mifeprex--FDA has relied on annual reports, supplemental applications, 
or periodic reports for required updates on the postmarket use of the 
drugs, including summaries of updates to the restricted distribution 
program.[Footnote 55] 

Through the end of 2007, FDA had conducted inspections specifically to 
oversee sponsors' compliance with distribution restrictions for three 
of the drugs--Mifeprex, Tracleer, and Xyrem. In the case of Mifeprex, 
in 2002 FDA conducted routine inspections of two of the drug's 
distributors to oversee their compliance with distribution 
restrictions. FDA inspectors reviewed standard operating procedures and 
other information in order to oversee adherence to the requirements of 
the restricted distribution program such as procedures for maintaining 
signed provider agreements, distributing medication guides with 
shipments of the drug, and maintaining the physical security of the 
drug. For one of the inspections of Mifeprex distributors, FDA did not 
issue a citation. For the other inspection, FDA issued a citation in 
which the agency cited four inconsistencies between the approved 
distribution plan and the distributor's standard operating procedures. 
For example, FDA cited the distributor for the absence of certain 
written procedures pertaining to the distribution of the drug. The 
sponsor responded to this citation, noting that at the time of approval 
the distribution plan did not require that distributors prepare such 
written procedures. Other examples of the inconsistencies FDA noted 
were serial numbers that had not been properly recorded on a shipping 
label as required for tracking purposes and the requirement that a 
medication guide be provided with each dose of the drug was not 
reflected in the written procedures for processing orders. As a result 
of its 2006 inspection of the Tracleer restricted distribution program, 
FDA did not issue a formal citation, but provided recommendations to 
the sponsor. In its 2007 inspection of the Xyrem restricted 
distribution program, FDA did not identify any specific 
deficiencies.[Footnote 56] However, many of the responsibilities for 
the program are contracted out to a pharmacy, which was not inspected. 
The inspection report notes that, for that reason, FDA could not verify 
whether the sponsor had fulfilled the requirements for the drug's 
restricted distribution program. 

Although FDA's inspections for Mifeprex and Tracleer led to 
recommendations for improving the respective restricted distribution 
programs, through the end of 2007, FDA had not conducted inspections of 
compliance with restricted distribution requirements for six Subpart H 
restricted drugs. FDA officials told us that the agency has conducted 
inspections of compliance with distribution restrictions for three 
additional drugs since the beginning of 2008.[Footnote 57],[Footnote 
58] 

To Oversee Compliance with Postmarketing Study Commitments, FDA Relied 
on Sponsors' Data That Found That Most Have Unfulfilled Commitments: 

For the eight Subpart H restricted drugs approved with postmarketing 
study commitments, FDA has relied on sponsors' annual reports for 
updates on the status of each commitment. FDA's reviews of these 
reports are the basis for its determination of the status of each 
commitment as fulfilled, submitted, pending, ongoing, delayed, 
released, or terminated. FDA officials told us that the status of 
postmarketing study commitments for Subpart H drugs is monitored the 
same way as those commitments for other drugs. 

Seven of the eight Subpart H restricted drugs approved with 
postmarketing study commitments had at least one commitment that was 
not fulfilled as of September 2007.[Footnote 59] Of these seven drugs, 
most have study commitments that FDA has classified as ongoing, 
pending, or delayed.[Footnote 60] In the case of Mifeprex, FDA had 
categorized both of the drug's postmarketing study commitments--to 
which the sponsor agreed at time of the drug's approval in 2000--as 
ongoing until December 2007 when the agency changed the status of one 
of the commitments to released. For the first commitment--a study to 
compare outcomes for patients whose health care providers perform a 
surgical abortion with outcomes for patients who are referred to 
another facility for follow-up care in the event of treatment failure-
-the sponsor has reported difficulty in enrolling participants into the 
study. FDA told us that according to the sponsor, the "vast majority of 
prescribers" can provide surgical abortion services on site. FDA has 
opted not to terminate the study, and has categorized it as ongoing. 
FDA officials told us that this gives the agency additional flexibility 
in the event that provider or practice patterns change over time, 
making enrollment of study participants more feasible. The sponsor also 
has reported enrollment challenges in the case of the second study 
commitment for Mifeprex--to conduct surveillance of ongoing pregnancies 
following failure of treatment. FDA officials told us that postmarket 
experience with the drug has shown that most patients opt to have a 
surgical abortion in the event that the Mifeprex regimen is not 
successful in terminating the pregnancy. In December 2007, FDA released 
the sponsor from this commitment because it determined that the study 
will no longer provide helpful information because of low enrollment. 

FDA has worked with some of the sponsors of the Subpart H restricted 
drugs to make adjustments to agreed upon commitments that have not been 
completed.[Footnote 61] FDA officials told us that the agency has in 
some cases made changes to a sponsor's postmarketing study commitments 
or requested new commitments in addition to those specified at 
approval. For example, FDA recommended several additional postmarketing 
study commitments for Thalomid following the agency's approval of an 
expanded indication for the drug. In the case of Tracleer, FDA 
recommended changes to some of the drug's study commitments. FDA had 
not requested additions or changes to the postmarketing study 
commitments for Mifeprex until the agency released the sponsor from its 
commitment to conduct surveillance of ongoing pregnancies following 
failure of treatment. 

To Oversee Compliance with Adverse Event Reporting Requirements, FDA 
Reviewed Sponsors' Data, Conducted Inspections and Identified 
Deficiencies for Most of the Drugs: 

To oversee compliance with adverse event reporting requirements, FDA 
has both reviewed data submitted by sponsors in required reports and 
conducted inspections. Sponsor reporting for the drugs has included 
annual reports in which the sponsor provided a summary of the adverse 
events reported in the previous year; periodic update reports which 
inform FDA of adverse events monthly, quarterly, or at some other 
interval established by FDA; and 15-day alert reports for events that 
are both serious and unexpected. In addition, in some cases sponsors 
have agreed or FDA has required them to provide 15-day alert reports 
for other types of serious adverse events. For example, the sponsor of 
Mifeprex agreed to provide 15-day alert reports for cases of serious 
infection and ruptured ectopic pregnancy in women who used the drug, 
and FDA required the sponsor of Thalomid to report suspected or 
confirmed pregnancy in women taking that drug.[Footnote 62] In some 
cases, including for Mifeprex, FDA specifically documented its 
assessments of adverse event reporting contained in annual, periodic 
update, or 15-day alert reports or reports submitted to the AERS 
database. FDA officials told us that staff review all submitted 
reports, but do not always document their reviews. 

In addition to relying on reports submitted by the sponsors, FDA has 
conducted inspections specifically to oversee the sponsors' compliance 
with adverse event reporting requirements for eight of the nine drugs, 
including Mifeprex.[Footnote 63] Between 2001 and May 2008, FDA had 
conducted 19 such inspections with a range of none to four inspections 
conducted for each drug.[Footnote 64] In the case of Mifeprex, FDA has 
conducted three inspections--in 2002, 2004, and 2006--related to 
adverse event reporting. In these inspections, FDA reviewed a variety 
of documents pertaining to adverse event reporting for Mifeprex, 
including standard operating procedures, product labeling, MedWatch 
reporting forms, 15-day alert reports, complaint file, periodic update 
reports on adverse events, and annual NDA reports. In addition, FDA 
documented reviews of samples of the sponsor's adverse event reports 
for completeness, accuracy, and timeliness. 

As a result of the Mifeprex inspections, FDA issued citations for 
deficiencies related to the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of 
some reports as well as for the sponsor's failure to follow certain 
procedures for handling some adverse event follow-up activities. In 
each of the Mifeprex inspections, FDA identified some examples of 
misclassified reports--events which FDA said should have been submitted 
as 15-day alert reports rather than in periodic reports. For example, 
FDA cited the sponsor for not classifying some events resulting in 
hospitalization as serious events and thus not reporting those events 
as 15-day alert reports. In another inspection, FDA found that some of 
the sponsor's procedures for reporting and following up on adverse 
events were inadequate or had not been developed. These deficiencies 
were similar to those FDA found for other drugs, and FDA identified 
fewer problematic reports for Mifeprex than for some of the other 
Subpart H restricted drugs. Following each of the inspections for 
Mifeprex, the sponsor provided a written response to FDA in which it 
either agreed to address FDA's findings or noted its disagreement with 
the deficiencies FDA cited. For example, following the first 
inspection, the sponsor agreed to address the examples of misclassified 
or incomplete reporting FDA cited and to reinforce procedures for 
handling adverse event-related correspondence with its staff. In some 
cases the sponsor disagreed with FDA's characterization of a deficiency 
or presented evidence to refute a claim that it had not complied with a 
reporting requirement or procedure. 

As a result of FDA's inspections for the other seven drugs, the agency 
issued written citations to six of the sponsors for deficiencies. In 
addition, FDA noted only "oral observations" for the other sponsor. 
Similar to the Mifeprex inspections, FDA staff reviewed information 
such as sponsor documentation and standard operating procedures related 
to adverse event reporting for the other seven drugs for which it 
conducted inspections. As it did for the Mifeprex inspections, FDA 
reviewed samples of adverse event reports for completeness, accuracy, 
or timeliness for most of the other drugs. As it did with Mifeprex, FDA 
cited some sponsors for deficiencies such as incomplete or late 
reporting of adverse events or failure to adhere to certain procedures 
for reporting. For example, FDA cited the sponsor of Thalomid for 
failure to submit several reports of serious and unexpected adverse 
events as a 15-day alert report and for late reporting of some other 
adverse events that included deaths and hospitalizations. In addition, 
FDA issued an untitled letter to the sponsor citing its failure to 
review and submit 82 reports of serious and unexpected adverse events 
within the required time frame. 

FDA was not always consistent in how it documented deficiencies in 
adverse event reporting. In some of its inspections FDA documented the 
same type of deficiency as a citation while in others it noted them as 
oral observations or discussion points. For example, FDA did not issue 
a citation for the sponsor of Tracleer after inspectors noted 52 late 
15-day reports--instead discussing the late reports with the sponsor at 
the close of the inspection. However, in its first inspection of the 
sponsor for Mifeprex, FDA issued a citation for failure to file a 
single 15-day report within the required 15 days. FDA also cited the 
sponsor for 6 late 15-day reports in each of its two subsequent 
inspections, although the sponsor refuted this finding in written 
responses following each inspection. As in the case of Mifeprex, 
sponsors responded to FDA in writing to describe actions they had taken 
to address deficiencies or to disagree with FDA's conclusions following 
an inspection. 

To Oversee Postmarket Safety, FDA Used Similar Methods to Review 
Reported Adverse Events and Took a Variety of Actions in Response to 
Emerging Concerns: 

FDA has used similar methods to oversee postmarket safety--monitoring, 
investigating, and taking action on emerging safety concerns--for 
Mifeprex and the other eight Subpart H restricted drugs. For Mifeprex, 
FDA has routinely reviewed the available information on reported 
adverse events from sources such as annual reports, periodic update 
reports, 15-day alerts, and data from its AERS database. Since the time 
Mifeprex was approved, FDA has documented regular reviews and 
summarized the available data on adverse event reports to monitor the 
drug's safety. FDA believes that, because the distribution system for 
Mifeprex requires that prescribing physicians agree to report 
hospitalizations and other serious adverse events, it is unlikely there 
are significant numbers of these events that are not reported to FDA. 
However, FDA acknowledges that because the reporting system is 
voluntary, the agency cannot be certain that they have reports of all 
serious adverse events. 

FDA officials have concluded that, with the exception of the cases of 
fatal infection, the reported serious adverse events associated with 
Mifeprex have been within or below the ranges expected based upon the 
medical literature on adverse events following medical abortion. In its 
May 2006 response to congressional inquiries regarding 
Mifeprex,[Footnote 65] FDA stated that the most commonly reported 
serious adverse events had been blood loss requiring a transfusion, 
infection, and ectopic pregnancy. FDA estimated that 0.023 percent of 
U.S. women who had taken Mifeprex have required transfusion, compared 
to a transfusion rate of 0.15 percent observed in international studies 
of the drug. FDA also noted that the rate of ectopic pregnancy among 
U.S. women who had used Mifeprex was 0.005 percent, compared to the 
overall rate of 1.3 to 2 percent in all U.S. pregnancies. Based on the 
medical literature, FDA estimated that fewer than 1 percent of patients 
will develop an infection of any kind following medical abortion with 
Mifeprex. 

According to FDA, as of May 2008, among the estimated 915,000 U.S. 
women who had taken Mifeprex for termination of pregnancy since its 
approval, the agency was aware of seven deaths that may be related to 
the use of the drug.[Footnote 66] Six of the deaths were due to severe 
infection, and one death involved an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy. Of 
the cases involving infection, five of the women were infected with a 
rare bacterium, Clostridium sordellii, while one woman was infected 
with the bacterium Clostridium perfringens. With assistance from the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other outside 
experts, FDA has investigated all reported infection-related deaths in 
U.S. women who have taken the Mifeprex regimen for termination of 
pregnancy. These investigations included requesting the medical records 
and autopsy reports for each case; evaluating available adverse event 
data from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the World Health 
Organization; consulting with scientific experts and health care 
providers from inside and outside FDA; and microbiological testing to 
identify the bacterium involved. In addition, FDA evaluated samples 
from the drug lots of Mifeprex and misoprostol associated with some of 
the deaths to test for contamination with the bacteria.[Footnote 67] 
FDA found that in the six cases of death due to infection, the women 
used a regimen of Mifeprex and misoprostol that has not been approved 
by FDA.[Footnote 68] FDA has stated that it is aware that many health 
care providers use modified regimens, and while some of the regimens 
have been described in the medical literature, FDA has not evaluated 
the safety and effectiveness of any other regimen than the one 
described in the drug's approved labeling. 

To further explore the nature of the infections, FDA initiated an 
interagency scientific workshop in May 2006 with CDC and the National 
Institutes of Health entitled "Emerging Clostridial Disease." These 
agencies had observed a general increase in the United States in 
reports of serious clostridial infections including infections in women 
who had used Mifeprex, that raised questions about Clostridium's 
relationship to fatal illness and pregnancy. According to the meeting 
minutes, participants discussed recent cases of clostridial infection-
-including those occurring among women who had taken Mifeprex and 
misoprostol for termination of pregnancy and those who had not-- 
reviewed what was currently known about these infections, and discussed 
how to conduct surveillance to ensure that cases and trends of 
clostridial infections are monitored. At the workshop, a CDC official 
reported on the history of clostridial infections, including a cluster 
of ten fatal cases reported in the literature between 1977 and 2001 
among previously healthy women. Of the ten cases, eight of the women 
became infected following childbirth, one became infected following a 
medical abortion, and the other case was unrelated to pregnancy. 

As a result of its investigative efforts, FDA has concluded that the 
evidence does not indicate that Mifeprex caused the fatal infections. 
In response to congressional inquiry, FDA stated that "the nature of 
the relationship between taking a single dose of the drug and the 
reported cases of serious infection with a rare bacterium is highly 
uncertain."[Footnote 69] Laboratory testing of samples from the drug 
lots of Mifeprex and misoprostol associated with some of the deaths due 
to infection has shown no evidence of contamination with the 
bacteria.[Footnote 70] FDA officials have said that the relationship 
between the infections and the use of unapproved regimens of Mifeprex 
and misoprostol remains unknown. Some research has suggested that the 
use of Mifeprex may suppress the immune system which could lead to 
infection. However, FDA has noted that if this were the case, the 
agency would expect to see a higher rate of other types of serious 
infections in patients who had used the drug, which has not been the 
case. FDA has noted that findings by the CDC and in the medical 
literature suggest that pregnancy itself--rather than the medication-- 
may be the critical risk factor for women who have become infected with 
Clostridium sordellii. 

FDA, working with the drug's sponsor, has taken a variety of steps-- 
such as issuing warnings and making changes to the product labeling--to 
address safety concerns for Mifeprex that were identified through 
postmarket monitoring and investigation. For example, in response to 
reports of ruptured ectopic pregnancy, FDA developed a questions and 
answers document about the condition and worked with the drug's sponsor 
to alert health care providers and to highlight the importance of 
careful screening for the condition. In addition, FDA approved a 
labeling change to provide information about the importance of 
evaluating patients for ectopic pregnancy. In response to concerns 
about serious infections and associated deaths--all of which involved 
an off-label use of the drug--FDA issued Public Health Advisories to 
notify healthcare providers about patient deaths and the treatment 
regimens used in those cases, and to remind them of the regimen FDA has 
approved, and that FDA has not established the safety of alternative 
regimens. In addition, FDA issued a news release, reviewed letters from 
the sponsor to health care providers and emergency room directors to 
alert them to the safety concerns regarding serious infection, and 
approved changes to product labeling including revisions to the warning 
to include information about the deaths due to serious 
infection.[Footnote 71] FDA also has established a Web site with 
information about Mifeprex, questions and answers about the drug, and 
links to other safety-related information.[Footnote 72] FDA used 
labeling changes--including updating the medication guide that 
prescribers agree to discuss with their patients--and information 
posted on its Web site to remind consumers and health care providers 
that FDA has not assessed the safety and efficacy of any regimen other 
than the one approved for the drug and indicated in its labeling. 

FDA has similarly monitored adverse events for the other Subpart H 
restricted drugs. As FDA has done with Mifeprex, the agency has 
documented periodic safety reviews of the available information it had 
on reported adverse events for all of the other drugs. FDA's reviews 
analyzed data on reported adverse events from sources such as annual 
NDA reporting, periodic update reports, 15-day alerts, and data from 
the AERS database. Some FDA reviews summarized the available data on a 
specific type of adverse event--like liver toxicity, or severe 
bleeding--or adverse events in general, in order to determine whether 
the data suggest an emerging safety concern for the drug. In addition, 
in some cases, as it did with Mifeprex, FDA has sought the advice and 
assistance of other federal agencies and outside experts to investigate 
serious adverse events. 

As a result of its monitoring activities, FDA has identified postmarket 
safety concerns for most of the Subpart H restricted drugs and has 
taken similar actions to address them. When FDA has found safety 
concerns related to a Subpart H restricted drug, it has worked with the 
drug's sponsor to employ a variety of measures to ensure the drug's 
safe use. These have included adding or strengthening a warning on the 
label, issuing a Public Health Advisory, and sending letters to health 
care providers to alert them to a safety risk. FDA has approved safety- 
related labeling changes, such as boxed warnings, for eight of the nine 
drugs. In the case of four of the drugs, including Mifeprex, the agency 
issued a Public Health Advisory or Safety Alert. The sponsors of five 
of the drugs including Mifeprex sent a letter to health care providers 
who prescribe (or may prescribe) the drug to alert them of safety 
concerns or to communicate new information regarding the drug. For 
example, in the case of Tracleer, adverse event reports revealed an 
increased risk of liver damage in patients who were treated with the 
drug. As a result, FDA and the sponsor notified health care providers 
of the risk by issuing a Safety Alert, highlighting the need for 
continued monitoring of liver function in patients using the drug. The 
sponsor added a boxed warning about potential liver injury to the 
labeling and issued a letter to health care providers to alert them to 
the potential risk. In general, the actions FDA took in response to 
safety concerns were similar across all of the drugs. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided HHS with a draft of this report for review. HHS informed us 
that it did not have general comments on the draft report. In addition, 
HHS provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

As we agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the 
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it 
until 30 days from the date of this letter. We will then send copies to 
others who are interested and make copies available to others who 
request them. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7114 or crossem@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 
this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Signed by: 

Marcia Crosse: 

Director, Health Care: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Select Drugs Approved by FDA with Restricted Distribution: 

Table 4: 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Accutane (isotretinoin); 
Condition treated: Severe recalcitrant nodular acne; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): Supplemental 
NDA (2005). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Actiq (oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate); 
Condition treated: Management of breakthrough cancer pain in patients 
with malignancies who are already receiving and who are tolerant to 
opioid therapy; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (1998). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Lotronex (alosetron hydrochloride); 
Condition treated: Severe diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome 
(IBS) in women who have: chronic IBS symptoms (generally lasting 6 
months or longer), had anatomic or biochemical abnormalities of the 
gastrointestinal tract excluded, and failed to respond to conventional 
therapy; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): Supplemental 
NDA (2002). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Mifeprex (mifepristone); 
Condition treated: Medical termination of intrauterine pregnancy 
through 49 days' pregnancy; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (2000). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Plenaxis (abarelix for injectable suspension); 
Condition treated: Palliative treatment of men with advanced 
symptomatic prostate cancer, with specified risks or symptoms; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (2003). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Revlimid (lenalidomide); 
Condition treated: Treatment of a limited subset of patients with 
transfusion dependent anemia; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (2005). 

Condition treated: Drugs approved under the restricted distribution 
provision of Subpart HThalomid (thalidomide): Treatment of multiple 
myeloma patients who have received at least one prior therapy; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): Drugs approved 
under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart HThalomid 
(thalidomide): Supplemental NDA. 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Thalomid (thalidomide); 
Condition treated: Acute treatment of cutaneous manifestations of 
moderate to severe erythema nodosum leprosum (ENL) and as maintenance 
therapy for prevention and suppression of the cutaneous manifestations 
of ENL recurrences; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (1998). 

Condition treated: Drugs approved under the restricted distribution 
provision of Subpart HTracleer (bosentan): Newly diagnosed multiple 
myeloma; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): Drugs approved 
under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart HTracleer 
(bosentan): Two Supplemental NDAs[A]. 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Tracleer (bosentan); 
Condition treated: Pulmonary arterial hypertension; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (2001). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Xyrem (sodium oxybate); 
Condition treated: Cataplexy associated with narcolepsy; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (2002). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Select Drugs with restricted distribution imposed outside of Subpart 
H; 
Condition treated: [Empty]; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): Application 
type (year first approved). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Clozaril (clozapine); 
Condition treated: Management of severely ill schizophrenic patients 
who fail to respond adequately to standard drug treatment for 
schizophrenia; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (1989). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Tikosyn (dofetilide); 
Condition treated: Irregular heartbeats (atrial fibrillation and atrial 
flutter); 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): NDA (1999). 

Drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision of Subpart 
H: Trovan (trovafloxacin/ alatrofloxacin); 
Condition treated: Serious, life-or limb-threatening infections in an 
inpatient healthcare setting; 
Application type (year first approved under Subpart H): n/ a[B] (1997). 

Source: GAO analysis of FDA data. 

Note: We list each drug by its trade name with its chemical name in 
parentheses. 

[A] These supplemental NDAs were approved under both the restricted 
distribution and surrogate endpoint provisions of Subpart H. 

[B] Trovan was not originally approved with distribution restrictions. 
Based on postmarket evidence of serious liver injury in some patients, 
the sponsor agreed to FDA's requests to limit the distribution of 
Trovan to patients with specific symptoms only in inpatient settings. 
However, these restrictions were not associated with a supplemental 
application. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Detailed Description of Distribution Restrictions for 
Mifeprex: 

FDA approved Mifeprex with the following specific restrictions on 
distribution: 

* Mifeprex must be provided by or under the supervision of a physician 
who possesses adequate qualifications and agrees to provide the 
treatment according to several guidelines. To accomplish this, the 
system required that prescribing physicians register with an authorized 
distributor by providing a signed Prescriber's Agreement attesting to 
the following: 

* Possesses the ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately. 

* Possesses the ability to diagnose ectopic pregnancies. 

* Possesses the ability to provide surgical intervention in cases of 
incomplete abortion or severe bleeding, or has made plans to provide 
such care through other qualified physicians, and are able to assure 
patient access to medical facilities equipped to provide blood 
transfusions and resuscitation, if necessary. 

* Has read and understood the prescribing information about Mifeprex. 

* Will provide each patient with a medication guide and fully explain 
the procedure to each patient, provide her with a copy of the 
medication guide and Patient Agreement, give her an opportunity to read 
and discuss both the medication guide and the Patient Agreement, obtain 
her signature on the Patient Agreement and sign it as well. 

* Will notify the sponsor or its designate in writing as discussed in 
the Package Insert under the heading DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION in the 
event of an ongoing pregnancy, which is not terminated subsequent to 
the conclusion of the treatment procedure. 

* Will report any hospitalization, transfusion or other serious events 
to the sponsor or its designate. 

* Will record the Mifeprex package serial number in each patient's 
record. 

* Provisions for the physical security of the drug during distribution 
such as: 

* Direct distribution of the drug through select authorized 
distributors to physicians who have signed the Prescriber's Agreement, 
which includes providing their medical license number. Distributors are 
required to ensure that the physician is registered before distributing 
the drug. 

* Secure manufacturing, receiving, distribution, shipping, and return 
procedures, including unique serial numbers on packaging and tamper- 
proof seals. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Prescriber's Agreement for Mifeprex Distribution: 

The following is the prescriber's agreement at the time of the Mifeprex 
approval. Under the restricted distribution program for Mifeprex, the 
agreement is provided--by the sponsor's licensee Danco Laboratories, 
Inc.--to all providers to be signed and returned before the prescriber 
can receive any shipments of Mifeprex. 

MIFEPREXTM: 

(Mifepristone) Tablets, 200 mg: 
Prescriber's Agreement: 

We are pleased that you wish to become a provider of Mifeprex* 
(Mifepristone) Tablets, 200 mg, which is indicated for the medical 
termination of intrauterine pregnancy through 49 days from the first 
day of the patient's last menstrual period (see full prescribing 
information). Prescribing Information, Mifeprex Medication Guides and 
PATIENT AGREEMENT forms will be provided together with your order of 
Mifeprex. 

Prior to establishing your account and receiving your first order, you 
must sign and return this letter to the distributor, indicating that 
you have met the qualifications outlined below and will observe the 
guidelines outlined below. If you oversee more than one office 
facility, you will need to list each facility on your order form prior 
to shipping the first order. 

By signing the reverse side, you acknowledge receipt of the 
Prescriber's Agreement and agree that you meet these qualifications and 
that you will follow these guidelines for use. You also understand that 
if you do not follow these guidelines, the distributor may discontinue 
distribution of the drug to you. 

Under Federal law, Mifeprex must be provided by or under the 
supervision of a physician who meets the following qualifications: 

* Ability to assess the duration of pregnancy accurately. 

* Ability to diagnose ectopic pregnancies. 

* Ability to provide surgical intervention in cases of incomplete 
abortion or severe bleeding, or have made plans to provide such care 
through others, and are able to assure patient access to medical 
facilities equipped to provide blood transfusions and resuscitation, if 
necessary. 

* Has read and understood the prescribing information of Mifeprex. The 
prescribing information is attached to this letter, and is also 
available by calling our toll free number, 1-877-4 Early Option (1-877-
432-7596), or logging on to our website, [hyperlink, 
http://www.earlyoptionpill.com]. 

In addition to these qualifications, you must provide Mifeprex in a 
manner consistent with the following guidelines. 

* Under Federal law, each patient must be provided with a Medication 
Guide. You must fully explain the procedure to each patient, provide 
her with a copy of the Medication Guide and Patient Agreement, give her 
an opportunity to read and discuss them, obtain her signature on the 
Patient Agreement, and sign it yourself. 

* The patient's follow-up visit at approximately 14 days is very 
important to confirm that a complete termination of pregnancy has 
occurred and that there have been no complications. You must notify 
Danco Laboratories in writing as discussed in the Package Insert under 
the heading Dosage And Administration in the event of an on-going 
pregnancy which is not terminated subsequent to the conclusion of the 
treatment procedure. 

* While serious adverse events associated with the use of Mifeprex are 
rare, you must report any hospitalization, transfusion or other serious 
event to Danco Laboratories, identifying the patient solely by package 
serial number to ensure patient confidentiality. 

* Each package of Mifeprex has a serial number. As part of maintaining 
complete records for each patient, you must record this serial number 
in each patient's record. 

Danco Laboratories, LLC: 
P.O. Box 4816: 
New York, NY 10185: 
1-877-4 Early Option (1-877-432-7596): 
[hyperlink, http://www.earlyoptionpill.com: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Marcia Crosse, (202) 512-7114 or crossem@gao.gov. 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Martin T. Gahart, Assistant 
Director; Jill Center; Chad Davenport; and Cathy Hamann made key 
contributions to this report. Julian Klazkin also contributed. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Mifeprex is the trade name for the mifepristone product marketed in 
the United States. Mifepristone is the name of the underlying drug 
substance. Mifepristone is also sometimes called "RU-486," a reference 
to the name the drug had during laboratory testing. 

[2] Subpart H of FDA's drug approval regulations--titled "Accelerated 
Approval of New Drugs for Serious or Life-Threatening Illnesses"-- 
applies to drugs that are intended to treat serious or life-threatening 
illnesses and provide a meaningful therapeutic benefit to patients over 
existing treatments. The regulations contain two approval provisions. 
One provides a process through which FDA may restrict the distribution 
or use of a drug to assure its safe use. The other provides FDA with 
flexibilities that allow the agency to accelerate the approval process 
for certain drugs on the basis of clinical trial endpoints that are 
considered reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. See 21 C.F.R. 
§§ 314.500-560 (2007). 

[3] A drug sponsor is the person or entity who assumes responsibility 
for the marketing of a new drug, including responsibility for complying 
with applicable laws and regulations. 

[4] FDA also reviews supplemental NDAs, which sponsors submit to 
support proposed changes to a drug's label, a new dosage or strength of 
the drug, a new patient population or intended use, or changes to the 
way the drug is manufactured after a drug has an approved NDA. 

[5] FDA issued a final rule on July 10, 2008, amending its drug 
approval regulations. The final rule, among other things, discontinues 
FDA's use of approvable letters and not approvable letters. Instead, in 
the event that FDA determines it will not approve an application in its 
current form, the agency will send applicants a "complete response 
letter" to indicate that the review cycle for an application is 
complete and to describe the specific deficiencies the agency 
identified in the application. The amended regulations are effective on 
August 11, 2008. See 73 Fed. Reg. 39588-89 (July 10, 2008). 

[6] 21 C.F.R. § 314.520 (2007). From 1992--the year that the 
regulations were promulgated--through February 2007, nine drugs, 
including Mifeprex, had either an NDA or supplemental NDA approved 
under this restricted distribution provision. Under the Food and Drug 
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), FDA may determine that a 
risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) is necessary to ensure 
that the benefits of a drug outweigh its risks. The REMS provisions of 
FDAAA went into effect on March 25, 2008. As part of a REMS, FDA can 
require "elements to assure safe use," which include restrictions 
similar to those that can be required under Subpart H regulations. 21 
U.S.C. § 355-1(a), (e), (f); Pub. L. No. 110-85, §§ 901, 909(a), 121 
Stat. 823, 922, 926-38, 950. 

[7] 21 C.F.R. § 314.126(b)(2)(v) (2007). In contrast, clinical trials 
that use concurrent controls demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a 
drug by comparing its effects on patients in a treatment group to the 
effects of a different treatment--such as another drug or a placebo--on 
patients in a control group within the same study population. 

[8] The term postmarket refers to activities occurring after a drug has 
been approved for marketing. FDA uses the term adverse drug event to 
refer to any untoward medical event associated with the use of a drug 
in humans. 

[9] FDA regulations require sponsors of approved drugs to submit 
various postmarket safety reports. See 21 C.F.R. §§ 314.80, 314.81 
(2007). Additionally, sponsors of approved drugs must report to FDA 
annually on the progress of any postmarket studies required by FDA or 
agreed to by the sponsor. 21 U.S.C. § 356b; 21 C.F.R. § 
314.81(b)(2)(vii) (2007). FDA uses such postmarket studies to gather 
additional information about a drug's safety, efficacy, or use once it 
is marketed. 

[10] In response to a Freedom of Information Act request, FDA posted 
certain documents pertaining to its approval of Mifeprex on the 
agency's Web site (see [hyperlink, 
http://www.fda.gov/cder/archives/mifepristone/default.htm]). The 
documents, which total over 9,000 pages, include a range of sometimes 
redacted material such as handwritten notes or email communications, 
communications between the drug sponsor and FDA, meeting minutes, 
copies of international labeling, and study protocols. 

[11] FDA may convene an advisory committee to obtain advice from 
scientific experts and representatives of the public regarding a drug. 
FDA requests advice from advisory committees on a variety of matters, 
including aspects of drug applications and postmarket safety concerns 
for drug products. The primary role of an advisory committee is to 
provide independent advice that will contribute to the quality of the 
agency's regulatory decision-making. Although the committees provide 
recommendations to the agency, final decisions are made by FDA. 

[12] The Population Council, a non-profit organization involved in 
reproductive health and population issues, sponsored the Mifeprex 
application. During the NDA review process, the Population Council 
contracted with Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. to serve as its licensee 
with responsibility for commercial manufacturing and marketing of the 
drug. Following the drug's approval, the Population Council transferred 
ownership of the Mifeprex NDA to Danco. 

[13] We initiated our work in February 2007. In June 2007, FDA approved 
one additional drug--Letairis--under the restricted distribution 
provision of Subpart H. This drug was not included in our review. 

[14] Misoprostol is one of several drugs that had been studied in 
combination with mifepristone for the medical termination of pregnancy 
because they have been shown to induce uterine contractions. However, 
it is approved for marketing in the United States for a different 
indicated use. 

[15] The company that discovered mifepristone and manufactured it for 
marketing in France--Roussel Uclaf--did not want to produce the drug 
for the U.S. market. Instead, the U.S. sponsor retained a contract 
manufacturer. For a more detailed discussion of the history of the 
development of mifepristone for the U.S. market, see: Congressional 
Research Service, Abortion: Termination of Early Pregnancy with RU-486 
(Mifepristone), (Washington, D.C.: 2001). 

[16] FDA may grant priority review status when it determines that a 
drug may provide significant benefits in the treatment, diagnosis, or 
prevention of a disease as compared to marketed drugs or non-drug 
therapies, such as surgery, or provide a treatment where no adequate 
therapy exists. 

[17] The non-clinical data in an NDA pertains to, for example a drug's 
chemistry, manufacturing, and controls as well as its toxicology and 
pharmacology. 

[18] 21 C.F.R. § 314.500 (2007). 

[19] 21 C.F.R. § 314.520 (2007). The sponsor for Plenaxis--approved in 
2003 for the palliative care of certain patients with advanced prostate 
cancer--withdrew the product from the market in 2006. Additionally, 
three generic versions of Accutane have been approved for marketing 
under this restricted distribution provision. 

[20] See 21 C.F.R. § 314.510 (2007). 

[21] According to FDA, although some surrogate endpoints are recognized 
as well-established and have long been a basis for approval (such as 
change in blood pressure or cholesterol), accelerated approval 
regulations allow reliance on a "surrogate endpoint that, while 
'reasonably likely' to predict clinical benefit, is not so well- 
established as the surrogates ordinarily used as bases of approval in 
the past." 57 Fed. Reg. 58942, 58944 (Dec. 11, 1992). 

[22] See 21 C.F.R. § 314.81 (2007). 

[23] See 21 C.F.R. § 314.80 (2007). 

[24] Unexpected events are those that are not included in the current 
labeling for a drug. 

[25] FDA uses the same reporting scheme--noting citations, 
observations, or recommendations--for its inspections to assess sponsor 
compliance with adverse event reporting. 

[26] MedWatch is a voluntary reporting program through which health 
professionals and consumers can report adverse reactions, product 
problems, and use errors related to drugs and other products approved 
by FDA. 

[27] GAO has previously reported on and made recommendations regarding 
FDA's postmarket oversight of approved drugs. See GAO, Drug Safety: 
Improvements Needed in FDA's Postmarket Decision-making and Oversight 
Process. GAO-06-402. (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2006). 

[28] 21 U.S.C. § 355(e). 

[29] Under Subpart H regulations, FDA may withdraw a drug's marketing 
approval after providing for a hearing, in the following circumstances; 
(1) a postmarketing clinical study fails to verify clinical benefit; 
(2) the sponsor fails to perform the required postmarketing study with 
due diligence; (3) use after marketing demonstrates that postmarketing 
restrictions are inadequate to assure safe use of the drug product; (4) 
the sponsor fails to adhere to the postmarketing restrictions agreed 
upon; (5) the promotional materials are false or misleading; or (6) 
other evidence demonstrates that the drug product is not shown to be 
safe or effective under its conditions of use. 21 C.F.R. § 314.530 
(2007). 

[30] See FDA, Guidance for Industry: E 10 Choice of Control Group and 
Related Issues in Clinical Tials (Rockville, Md.: May 2001). 

[31] 21 C.F.R. § 314.126(b)(2)(v) (2007). The regulation also states 
that studies that are "adequate and well-controlled" provide the 
primary basis for determining whether there is "substantial evidence" 
in support of the claims of effectiveness for new drugs. Among other 
things, an adequate and well-controlled study provides sufficient 
details of study design, conduct, and analysis to allow critical 
evaluation, and the design must permit a valid comparison with a 
control to provide a quantitative assessment of the drug's effect. 

[32] FDA has cited examples of other drugs that have relied upon 
historical controls. According to FDA, for contraceptives the effect of 
the drug can be compared to the well-documented rate of pregnancy in 
sexually active women between the ages of 15 and 35 in the absence of 
contraception. For example, FDA approved the contraceptive drug 
products Lybrel, Implanon, Yaz, and NuvaRing on the basis of 
historically controlled clinical trials. 

[33] The medical officer noted that it was only possible to make 
general comparisons across these events because definitions and 
reporting requirements were different in the two countries. 
Additionally, while the sponsor had not yet completed its analysis of 
the safety and efficacy data from the U.S. clinical trial, information 
from the studies was forwarded to the sponsor weekly. The medical 
officer concluded, based on preliminary examination of this 
information, that the final results of the U.S. trials were likely to 
be similar to the results of the French trials. 

[34] FDA management's concurrence memos noted that because the sponsor 
had voluntarily proposed a restricted distribution system, imposing 
restrictions through Subpart H regulations did not appear warranted. 

[35] The U.S. clinical trial data showed the treatment to be 92 percent 
effective for terminating pregnancy through 49 days gestation, which 
was slightly lower than the 95 percent from the French trials. Adverse 
event rates were also slightly higher in the U.S. trials. The medical 
officer attributed these differences to the relative inexperience of 
U.S. clinicians with the treatment. In addition, the medical officer 
concluded that the updated information from international studies, 
postmarket experience, and the published literature was consistent with 
the results from the U.S. and French trials. 

[36] In November 1999, FDA provided advisory committee members the 
final results from the U.S. clinical trial for their review and 
comment. FDA did not receive any comments from the members on these 
results. 

[37] The drug substance (mifepristone) in the Mifeprex product was 
manufactured by the Shanghai Haulian Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., with the 
manufacturing facilities located in China. Initial FDA inspections 
found the manufacturer not in compliance with FDA's good manufacturing 
practice standards. 

[38] Ectopic pregnancy--which occurs when a fertilized egg improperly 
implants outside of the uterus--is a contraindication for receiving the 
Mifeprex regimen. Accurate screening to ensure that patients with an 
ectopic pregnancy do not receive the treatment was a concern because a 
ruptured ectopic pregnancy is a life-threatening condition and its 
symptoms are similar to the side effects of the Mifeprex regimen. 

[39] According to FDA, it is not uncommon for the agency to consult 
with members of its advisory committees who have special expertise in a 
particular drug under review. Generally, an SGE is defined as an 
officer or employee who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed 
by the government to perform temporary duties, with or without 
compensation, for not more than 130 days during any period of 365 
consecutive days. 18 U.S.C. § 202(a). 

[40] Subpart H regulations state that any restrictions imposed will be 
commensurate with the specific safety concerns presented by the drug 
product. 21 C.F.R. § 314.520(b) (2007). 

[41] FDA had also noted that approving the drug under Subpart H would 
allow the agency to impose similar restrictions on any future generic 
mifepristone products approved for the same indication. The patent for 
Mifeprex expired in October 2004, but as of May 2008, no generic 
versions of mifepristone have been approved for marketing. 

[42] The terms "serious" and "life-threatening" are not defined in 
Subpart H regulations, but were discussed in the preambles to the 
proposed and final rules. In its proposed rule, FDA stated that the 
seriousness of a disease is a matter of judgment, but generally is 
based on its impact on survival, day-to-day functioning, or other 
factors, and provided examples of conditions that could be within the 
scope of the regulation. FDA noted that many diseases or conditions can 
be serious for some populations in some or all of their phases and 
explicitly reserved the discretion to determine whether the regulations 
were applicable to a given product. See 57 Fed. Reg. 13234-5 (Apr. 15, 
1992), 57 Fed. Reg. 58942, 58946 (Dec. 11, 1992); See also 21 C.F.R. §§ 
312.34, 312.81 (2007), and FDA, Guidance for Industry: Fast Track Drug 
Development Programs--Designation, Development, and Application Review 
(Rockville, Md.: Jan. 2006). 

[43] In support of its arguments about the intent of the regulations, 
the sponsor cited the pertinent language from preambles to the proposed 
and final rules. See footnote 42. 

[44] FDA may require that a drug be distributed with a medication guide 
that provides patients with information about the safe and effective 
use of the drug. See 21 C.F.R. pt. 208 (2007). 

[45] Actiq contains the controlled substance fentanyl in a lozenge 
formulation intended to allow for more rapid delivery of the medication 
for pain management in patients who have developed a tolerance. Because 
of the formulation there are concerns that Actiq may be perceived by 
children as a lollipop. 

[46] Both Accutane and Lotronex were approved under Subpart H after 
they had first been marketed in the United States. In the case of 
Lotronex, the sponsor withdrew the drug from the market in 2000 because 
of safety concerns. In 2002, FDA approved a supplemental NDA under 
Subpart H, allowing the drug to be marketed with a restricted 
distribution program and substantially more limited indication. For 
Accutane, which was originally approved for marketing in 1982, FDA 
approved a supplemental NDA under the restricted distribution provision 
of Subpart H in 2005 in order to require a more formal restricted 
distribution program that linked Accutane prescribing and dispensing to 
pregnancy testing results. 

[47] FDA approved Plenaxis on the basis of one uncontrolled clinical 
trial in the indicated population--men with advanced symptomatic 
prostate cancer--and three concurrently-controlled clinical trials in 
men with less advanced prostate cancer. FDA approved Xyrem on the basis 
of one uncontrolled key safety trial, and two concurrently-controlled 
clinical trials. 

[48] FDA considers such case studies to be historically controlled. In 
this case, the reviewing division concluded that the data were not 
sufficient to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of Thalomid. However, 
that decision was overridden by both the Director of the relevant FDA 
office and the Director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research, based on their individual analyses of the available data. 

[49] See, GAO, New Drug Development: Science, Business, Regulatory, and 
Intellectual Property Issues Cited as Hampering Drug Development 
Efforts, GAO-07-49. (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006). In contrast, the 
drugs approved under the surrogate endpoint provision of Subpart H have 
generally been approved more rapidly than drugs approved under the 
restricted distribution provision of Subpart H and than drugs approved 
outside of Subpart H. 

[50] Additionally, except for Plenaxis, FDA convened a meeting of the 
relevant advisory committee prior to each drug's approval under Subpart 
H to obtain expert input regarding the appropriate actions to address 
the agency's safe use concerns, including the distribution restrictions 
that should be required. The advisory committee meetings that FDA has 
held for the drugs Accutane and Lotronex occurred after each drug was 
first marketed in the United States, but prior to their approvals under 
Subpart H. 

[51] FDA has used various types of registries as a mechanism to collect 
data on patients, providers, and others as a tool for monitoring 
outcomes of interest. 

[52] Two of the drugs--Actiq and Xyrem--were approved as controlled 
substances and therefore subject to the restrictions imposed by the 
Controlled Substances Act. Requirements imposed under this act are 
enforced by the Drug Enforcement Administration and are distinct from 
the distribution restrictions imposed on these drugs by FDA under 
Subpart H. See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 822; 21 C.F.R. § 1301.11 (2007). 

[53] FDA's approval of Accutane under Subpart H through a supplemental 
NDA did not include any postmarket study commitments. 

[54] FDA approved six of the nine Subpart H restricted drugs with a 
requirement that the sponsor report periodically to FDA specifically on 
implementation of the respective restricted distribution program. Under 
FDAAA, sponsors of all drugs with an approved REMS will be required to 
submit periodically to FDA an assessment of their REMS. Pub. L. No. 110-
85, § 901(b), 823 Stat. 929, 932, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 355-1. 

[55] Though FDA's Subpart H regulations provide an expedited process 
for withdrawing marketing approval for a drug if FDA determines that 
promotional materials are false or misleading, the agency has not done 
so for a Subpart H drug. See 21 C.F.R. § 314.530(a)(5) (2007). However, 
it has issued warning letters citing the sponsors for two of the drugs-
-Thalomid and Tracleer--for promoting unapproved use of the drug in 
violation of FDA regulations. 

[56] FDA's inspection report notes that the sponsor refused to provide 
FDA access to full reports from audits that the sponsor had conducted 
to evaluate its contractors' compliance with agreed upon 
responsibilities under the restricted distribution program. 

[57] In 2008, FDA conducted initial inspections specific to the 
restricted distribution programs for Accutane, Actiq, and Revlimid. In 
addition, FDA conducted a second such inspection for the Tracleer 
program. As of May 13, 2008, the results from these inspections were 
not available. 

[58] In February 2007, agency officials told us that they were working 
to establish a process to conduct regular inspections to oversee 
sponsors' compliance with distribution restrictions for Subpart H 
restricted drugs. Since that time, agency officials told us that FDA 
had decided to combine the inspection of restricted distribution 
programs with inspections examining compliance with adverse event 
reporting requirements. However, agency officials noted in May 2008 
that FDA is reevaluating its process for conducting inspections in 
light of recent legislative changes. Under FDAAA, FDA is required to 
evaluate, at least annually, for one or more drugs that have elements 
to assure safe use as part of their REMS, whether those elements assure 
the safe use of the drug, are not unduly burdensome on patient access, 
and to the extent practicable minimize the burden on the health care 
delivery system. 21 U.S.C. § 355-1(f)(5)(B). 

[59] FDA has documented that the sponsor for Xyrem has fulfilled two of 
its postmarket study commitments and has submitted the final report for 
the third and final commitment. 

[60] In its June 2006 report on FDA's management of postmarket studies, 
the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector 
General found that it is common across all drugs approved by FDA with 
postmarket study commitments for sponsors to have unfulfilled 
commitments. 

[61] FDA may withdraw approval of a drug approved under Subpart H if a 
sponsor does not carry out its required postmarketing studies with due 
diligence. 21 C.F.R. § 314.530(a)(2) (2007). According to FDA, the 
regulations only require postmarketing study commitments for drugs 
approved under the surrogate endpoint provision (21 C.F.R. § 314.510) 
and not for drugs approved under the restricted distribution provision 
(21 C.F.R. § 314.520). FDAAA provides FDA with additional authority 
with regard to requiring postmarketing studies and/or trials. See 21 
U.S.C. § 355(o)(3). 

[62] Mifeprex labeling specifically cautions against the use of the 
drug in women with ectopic pregnancy. The sponsor has noted that the 
condition is not an adverse drug experience as FDA defines the term. 

[63] As of May 2008 FDA had not conducted an adverse event reporting 
inspection for the sponsor of Revlimid since this drug was approved 
under Subpart H. The agency inspected Celgene--the sponsor of Revlimid 
and Thalomid--in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2005, but these inspections 
occurred before Revlimid was approved in December 2005. FDA officials 
told us they did not have specific goals for how frequently sponsors 
are inspected to monitor compliance with adverse event reporting 
requirements. 

[64] These inspections include two inspections of the sponsor of 
Accutane (isotretinoin). FDA conducted an additional four adverse event 
reporting inspections of sponsors or the manufacturer of generic 
isotretinoin products. 

[65] FDA statement to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug 
Policy, and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, May 17, 
2006. 

[66] In her testimony to Congress on May 17, 2006, Dr. Janet Woodcock 
stated FDA was aware of five infection-related deaths in U.S. women. In 
the course of GAO's research for this study, FDA reported that an 
additional infection-related death occurred in 2007. In her testimony, 
Dr. Woodcock also discussed three other cases of deaths in U.S. women 
who had taken Mifeprex that, following investigation, were determined 
unlikely to be related to the use of the drug. In addition, she 
discussed three women in other countries whose deaths were related to 
the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for medical abortion. 

[67] The product tracking provision of the restricted distribution 
program for Mifeprex enabled FDA to locate the lot numbers for the 
drugs administered in each of the cases. 

[68] In the case of five of the deaths in the U.S. due to infection, 
the women used an oral dose of Mifeprex, followed by a dose of 
misoprostol taken intravaginally. In the other case of death due to 
infection, the woman used an oral dose of Mifeprex followed by a dose 
of misoprostol taken by inserting it in the pouch of the cheek. The 
regimen approved by FDA calls for swallowing doses of both Mifeprex and 
misoprostol. 

[69] See FDA letter to Representative Mark E. Souder, then-Chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, 
Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, July 31, 
2006. 

[70] FDA officials told us that the agency did not test for bacterial 
contamination of the specific lot associated with the most recent death 
because examination of the prior lots revealed no contamination. 

[71] FDA officials told us that the sponsor distributed a letter to all 
health care providers who had signed the prescriber's agreement as of 
the time of the distribution of the letter and distributed a letter to 
all emergency room directors in the United States. 

[72] FDA's Web site for Mifeprex safety information is located at: 
[hyperlink,http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/mifepristone/default.ht
m] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.  

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates."  

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:  

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061:  

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:  

Contact:  

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:  

Congressional Relations:  

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:  

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: