Category: Regulation

  • Tackling PMTA Deficiency Letters From the FDA

    Tackling PMTA Deficiency Letters From the FDA

    Photo: Araki Illustrations

    Contributed

    Paul Hardman

    In this article, Broughton Nicotine Services Head of Scientific Affairs Paul Hardman outlines the factors that can lead to data gaps in premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), what prompts a deficiency letter and how you can respond quickly and appropriately.

    What is a deficiency letter?

    Deficiency letters are sent to those who have submitted a PMTA with incomplete or insufficient data for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to make a decision on whether the product is “appropriate for the protection of the U.S. public health.”

    Why have I received a deficiency letter?

    There are common causes of deficiencies that prompt the arrival of a letter. These could include a PMTA that lacks information that was mistakenly considered unimportant by the electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) company but is actually required by the FDA.

    Applicants may also have been rushed to meet last year’s Sept. 9 deadline, leaving the company submitting the PMTA with insufficient time to collate and provide the required data. Similarly, the timeframe required to submit the application may not have left enough time to complete stability studies of the required length to provide a range of data. The FDA is, understandably, keen to understand the stability of a product over its expected shelf life.

    Other reasons include:

    • A lack of integration between different studies—often submissions provide extensive data for some workstreams but are light in others. It is important that appropriate data is provided for all product analysis, nonclinical and human subject studies—and that data and approaches are integrated across all areas.
    • Different interpretation of “scientifically justified”—many elements of the PMTA guidelines indicate that approaches applied need to be justified by scientific data. However, as all products differ, there is a level of ambiguity in terms of what this looks like and what is required.
    • Poor “bridging” of data—the FDA welcomes the bridging of scientific data between similar products where appropriate. However, bridging that is not, in the opinion of the FDA, sufficiently scientifically justified will be highlighted and raised as a deficiency.

    What will be in a deficiency letter?

    Despite the name, it won’t just be a letter. The deficiency packs issued by the FDA are very detailed, outlining positive aspects about your application and areas for improvement and attention.

    There will be multiple pages covering different points, with sections covering all products or particular products in a bundled PMTA and perhaps highlighting deficiencies for particular timepoints.

     

    What is the aim of the deficiency letter?

    Once a PMTA application has been accepted for filing, the next stage is substantive scientific review, which results in either a deficiency letter, a request for environmental information, a market order granted or a market order denied. The FDA will notify the submitting company when their application enters substantive scientific review.

    The FDA intention of the deficiency letter pack is to support you in providing the required information. Each will typically cover what you need to do to remedy the deficiency and what data you need to provide to allow the FDA to carry on with a substantive scientific review—and the FDA has confirmed that, for deemed products (those on sale in the U.S. on or before Aug. 8, 2016), you will only receive one deficiency letter based on the agency’s current high workload with the many applications in process. The FDA has said this may be reviewed in the future once the backlog is cleared. Generally, for deemed products, you will have only 90 days to respond to the deficiency letter with all the relevant data that has been requested.

    Information could include examples of what meets the FDA’s requirements and advice on how you could better explain or justify the information provided. There is no set response to a PMTA application. The FDA has received an extensive number of applications, which are reviewed by a team of people, so inconsistencies may arise between different responses. Also, take note that answering all the queries in a deficiency letter does not necessarily guarantee that your application will eventually be granted a marketing order.

    How can I prepare for a deficiency letter?

    As an ENDS company, you might have a good idea of possible data gaps within your submission and understand whether you are likely to receive a deficiency letter. Or, you may believe that what you have provided is appropriate and adequate. Either way, it is best to be prepared.

    Steps can be taken to ensure you are ready for any eventuality, the most important one being to ask for help. Scientific and regulatory ENDS specialists can undertake gap analysis to identify any possible deficiencies so that steps can be taken now to provide what is required.

    You can also ensure you fill any missing data gaps. If there is information that is clearly missing or inadequate, put studies in place to collect the data now. Remember, there are only 90 days to respond to a deficiency letter, which may not be sufficient time to obtain the information required.

    Another piece of advice would be to start stability studies now if you are in any doubt that the stability data you provided may not be sufficient in terms of duration. Putting studies in place now will help you stay ahead of the game if this aspect of your submission is questioned.

    Finally, you should always cross-check requirements. It is surprising how many companies miss out key sections, such as an executive summary or environmental assessment. Although omission of key sections is likely to lead to the FDA refusing to accept or refusing to file the application prior to reaching the substantive review phase, it makes sense to compare the detail of what you have provided with the list of requirements from the FDA to check if you have overlooked anything.

     

    Recently, the FDA confirmed that addendums of additional data can be submitted to them before the commencement of the substantive scientific review stage for the process. This is fantastic news for manufacturers who had submitted dossiers that were not as comprehensive as they would have liked; if your application has not yet entered substantive scientific review, you now have the opportunity to submit additional data at no penalty to your application. However, if you plan to do this, it is important to contact the FDA and describe the anticipated plan of data generation and submission—and be quick. If you leave this too late and your application does enter substantive scientific review, you run the risk of any addendums being detrimental to your application and a shortening of the FDA’s enforcement discretion.

    How can I be prepared for, or minimize the chance of, receiving a deficiency letter?

    ENDS companies most prepared to respond appropriately will be those that are expecting the letter and have the required data ready or those that avoid receiving a letter altogether by providing information upfront. Companies such as Broughton Nicotine Services can help at any stage of the process, either prior to submission or during substantive scientific review, troubleshooting when there is a refuse to file/accept decision and also helping with preparation for and response to deficiency letters.

    Broughton Nicotine Services can help you undertake a gap analysis on your submission and generate the required information. Contact our regulatory consulting team to book a meeting so that we can help you advance a smoke-free future. 

    This article was supplied on behalf of Broughton Nicotine Services.

  • U.K. Regulatory Agency Clarifies E-Cig Rules

    U.K. Regulatory Agency Clarifies E-Cig Rules

    Photo: Steheap

    The government agency overseeing the U.K.’s e-cigarettes and refill containers notification scheme as well as implementing the Tobacco and related Products Regulations (TRPR) has updated guidance on the sale of vaping products following discussions with the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) and Trading Standards.

    The UKVIA decided to intervene after being approached by a significant number of vape products manufacturers, distributors and retailers confused about what could and could not be legally sold in shops, particularly following the recent surge in new disposable vapes entering the U.K. market.

    As a result, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has now clarified its advice to both manufacturers and distributors of e-liquids and devices and vaping retailers.

    The UKVIA took part discussions with the MHRA and Trading Standards following concerns raised by retailers unsure of their compliance requirements and wary of falling foul of the law.

    “Due to the numerous enquiries we received about the legality of stocking new-to-the-market products, in particular the surge in new disposables, we decided it was imperative to talk to Trading Standards and raise this with the MRHA to seek clarification,” said John Dunne, director general of the UKVIA, in a statement.

    “Since then, we have been working with the MHRA to clarify the process around when products can legally be placed on the market for sale.

    “The first part saw the MHRA issue an e-bulletin clearly setting out the process and making it unambiguous that it is illegal to place products into the market until the ‘ECID’ numbers are published on the MHRA website as ‘approved/declared’

    “Next the MHRA updated its online advice for retailers, which is a highly satisfactory outcome as it effectively closes the loophole for when brands can place the product on the market and when a retailer can legally sell the product.”

    The MHRA’s guidance for vaping retailers previously read:

    “When sourcing new supplies of any e-cigarette or e-liquid product, check that details of the notification for the product have been published in the list of Notified Products.

    “If you cannot find the product on the MHRA’s website, ask your supplier to confirm that the product complies with the TRPR and has been notified to the MHRA. If a producer has not notified the product or it does not comply with the TRPR, they may not supply it to you.”

    The new wording says:

    When sourcing new supplies of any e-cigarette or e-liquid product, check that a compliant notification has been published in one of the Notified Product lists above.

    If you cannot find the product on the MHRA’s website, ask your supplier to confirm that it has been published and provide details to enable you to confirm the product’s status. If a product has yet to achieve publication status, they may not supply it to you.

    Dunne said the clarification demonstrates the effectiveness of open dialogue.

    “We want our sector to be known for upholding strict standards when it comes to the manufacture, distribution and sale of vaping products and this clarification from the MHRA can leave no one in any doubt about where their responsibilities lie,” he said.

    The MHRA’s full wording on the sale of vaping products is available here.

     

  • FDA: ‘Refuse to File’ Letter for JD Nova, 4.5 Million PMTAs

    FDA: ‘Refuse to File’ Letter for JD Nova, 4.5 Million PMTAs

    The JD Nova Group submitted premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) for an estimated 4.5 million products, approximately two-thirds of the total number of PMTA submissions. Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a Refuse to File (RTF) letter to the company. The letter notified JD Nova that the majority of their PMTAs did not meet the filing requirements for a new tobacco product seeking a marketing order.

    Credit: Tashatuvango

    “This RTF does not apply to all product applications submitted by JD Nova. The remaining product applications the company submitted by the Sept. 9, 2020 deadline are still moving through the review process,” the FDA stated in a press release. “As a result of this RTF action, the company must remove approximately 4.5 million products from the market or risk enforcement action by FDA. The company may resubmit a complete application for these products at any time. However, the products may not be marketed unless they receive a marketing granted order.”

    During the filing stages of application review, the FDA reviews for basic information to ensure applications contain the required material for scientific review, according to the release. If required contents for filing are missing, the FDA refuses to file the application.

    “JD Nova was issued the RTF letter because the company’s applications for these products lacked an adequate Environmental Assessment (EA),” the release states. “Under FDA’s regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an EA must be prepared for each proposed authorization, and an EA adequate for filing addresses the relevant environmental issues.”

    JD Nova was one of more than 360 companies included on a recent list of products that had submitted a timely PMTA to the FDA and was allowed to market products for up to one year, until Sept. 9 2021, or until the FDA makes a regulatory decision such as refusing to file a PMTA.

    From January through July 2021, the FDA has issued more than 135 warning letters to firms selling or distributing more than 1,470,000 unauthorized ENDS and that did not submit premarket applications by the Sept. 9 deadline. One company, Visible Vapors, had more than 15 million products registered with the FDA. On FDA’s Warning Letters page, you can find these warning letters by searching “Center for Tobacco Products” under “Issuing Office.” The regulatory agency has issued at least two warning letters in August so far.

  • Infrastructure Act Includes Vaping Ban on Amtrak Trains

    Infrastructure Act Includes Vaping Ban on Amtrak Trains

    Tucked away in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act crafted by a bipartisan group of senators is a ban on the use of electronic cigarettes on the nation’s government-owned rail service — and President Joe Biden’s favorite method of transportation.

    Credit: BT Renstrom

    “Amtrak shall prohibit smoking, including the use of electronic cigarettes, onboard all Amtrak trains,” the bill says. “The term ‘electronic cigarette’ means a device that delivers nicotine or other substances to a user of the device in the form of a vapor that is inhaled to simulate the experience of smoking.”

    Amtrak already has a policy prohibiting smoking and the use of electronic smoking on trains, but the bill would codify that regulation into law, according to the Washington Examiner.

    Democratic Delaware Sen. Tom Carper and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington’s nonvoting representative in Congress, previously spearheaded the effort to make Amtrak’s smoking ban law.

    “In 2021, smoking has no place in enclosed public spaces like train cars. As a near-daily Amtrak rider, I have supported their policy prohibiting smoking and even introduced legislation with Congresswoman Norton to make that policy federal law,” Carper said in a statement in June. “I think we can all agree that it’s time to ban smoking on passenger rail.”

    The bill, the text of which was unveiled Sunday night, includes $6.57 billion in grants to Amtrak for the railway’s northeast corridor, which connects Washington, D.C., to Boston, and $12.65 billion for Amtrak’s national network. Another $36 billion would go to federal-state partnership rail grants, with $24 billion of that targeting the northeast corridor.

  • Sheridan, Wyoming Vapor Ordinance Fails First Reading

    Sheridan, Wyoming Vapor Ordinance Fails First Reading

    During its first meeting of August Monday night, the Sheridan City Council in Wyoming voted against an ordinance that would have increased the fine amount and penalties for any minor possessing or using electronic cigarettes or other vaping products on first reading by a 4 to 3 vote.

    Credit: NiroWorld

    The penalty would have increased as much as 2,900 percent from the current fee of $25 to a maximum of $750, according to city attorney Brendon Kerns. Violators would not have been required to appear in court or perform community service or serve probation and would have been guaranteed full expungement of the incident from their criminal records within six months — regardless of whether it is their first or subsequent offense.

    Councilor Kristen Jennings was one of the four councilors who voted against the ordinance, stating that the council should not rush to pass a law without understanding its implications on the community.

    “I realize that the school district has asked for help, but at the same time pushing forward something that could potentially be full of holes may not be helping anybody to the best of the ability that we’re trying to do,” said Jennings. “So it could be shooting ourselves in the foot, and in a way, I think the premise is great and I do see we have an issue, but at the same time giving ourselves a self-imposed deadline to not be able to work through some of these questions and concerns. It seems like some of the citizens have too. I don’t know how well that benefits anybody.”

  • Ukraine Uses WHO Report to Justify Flavor Ban, Vape Rules

    Ukraine Uses WHO Report to Justify Flavor Ban, Vape Rules

    Ukrainian lawmakers passed a new law today prohibiting the use of electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS) in public places as well as advertising, sponsorship, and promotion of e-cigarettes. The law also bans the sale of flavored e-liquids other than tobacco flavors.

    Credit: Da Boost

    The parliamentarians said that justification for the regulations is based on the World Health Organization’s new report that suggests e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking, and that they are as harmful as conventional cigarettes, according to the Independent Women’s Forum. Lawmakers also claimed the flavor ban would reduce underage vaping in Ukraine, while data from the U.S. concerning flavor bans has showed banning flavors actually increases youth use of combustible products.

    In its report on vaping, published on Tuesday, the WHO speaks approvingly of the 32 countries where the sale and use of vaping devices is banned. In those 32 countries, people are still free to use combustible tobacco products, which data shows is responsible for more than 7 million deaths each year globally, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    “Eighty-four countries still have no bans or regulations to address ENDS, leaving them particularly vulnerable to the activities of the tobacco and related industries,” says the report, which was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the foundation started by American billionaire and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg.

    Not coincidentally, Bloomberg has been appointed the “WHO Global Ambassador for Noncommunicable Diseases and Injuries”—a largely honorary title granted in recognition of the money he spends on tobacco control and other health policy efforts, according to the WHO.

    Tobacco harm reduction advocates and vaping industry representatives denounced the WHO report as “nonsensical and dangerous.”

    “The WHO has a long-standing anti-vaping stance and this latest attack on a sector that is literally saving millions of lives worldwide flies in the face of scientific evidence, common sense and harm reduction,” said John Dunne, director general of the U.K. Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) in a statement.

    “This report demonstrates that, sadly, the WHO still doesn’t understand the fundamental difference between addiction to tobacco smoking, which kills millions of people every year, and addiction to nicotine, which doesn’t,” said John Britton, professor of epidemiology at University of Nottingham.

  • Firm With 15 Million Products Registered With FDA Warned

    Firm With 15 Million Products Registered With FDA Warned

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a warning letter to Visible Vapors. The regulatory agency advised the company that marketing its electronic nicotine-delivery system (ENDS) products, which lack a premarket tobacco product authorization (PMTA), is illegal, and therefore they cannot be sold or distributed in the U.S. The FDA states that the company did not submit PMTAs by the Sept. 9, 2020 deadline.

    While the warning letter issued cites specific products as examples, including Visible Vapors Irish Potato 100mL and Visible Vapors Peanut Butter Banana Bacon Maple (The King) 100mL, the company has more than 15 million products listed with FDA, and must ensure all of its products comply with federal rules and regulations, which include the premarket review requirement, according to the letter. Visible Vapors has the largest number of products registered with the FDA to have received a warning letter to date.

    From January through July 2021, the FDA has issued more than 135 warning letters to firms selling or distributing more than 1,470,000 unauthorized ENDS and that did not submit premarket applications by the Sept. 9 deadline. On FDA’s Warning Letters page, you can find these warning letters by searching “Center for Tobacco Products” under “Issuing Office.”

    The FDA often only lists a few products that a company is selling as illegal in the letter. It then states that there may be more, but it is impossible to know if the warnings encompass all the company’s registered products. The agency states that it is the responsibility of the company to only sell products with a submitted PMTA. Companies have until Sept. 9, 2021 to sell product unless the agency makes a decision on the PMTA approval or grants an extension.

    Companies that receive warning letters from the FDA have to submit a written response to the letter within 15 working days from the date of receipt describing the company’s corrective actions, including the dates on which it discontinued the violative sale, and/or distribution of the products. They also require the company’s plan for maintaining compliance with the FD&C Act in the future.

  • U.S. Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Require Vapor User Fees

    U.S. Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Require Vapor User Fees

    Six U.S. senators have introduced legislation that would require e-cigarette manufacturers pay user fees to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide the regulatory agency. The fees would finance additional resources for the FDA to conduct stronger oversight of the e-cigarette industry and increase awareness of the danger of e-cigarettes.

    U.S. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin joined U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Tammy Baldwin, and Mitt Romney introduced the Resources to Prevent Youth Vaping Act to protect children from the dangers of e-cigarettes, according to press release from Durbin’s office. Companion legislation will be introduced in the House by U.S. Representatives Cheri Bustos and Brian Fitzpatrick.

    Credit: Larry

    “Big Vape has hooked nearly four million kids on e-cigarettes, creating a vaping epidemic that is threatening our next generation with a lifetime of nicotine addiction and disease,” said Durbin. “The FDA needs to clear the shelves of these dangerous and addictive products, and Congress needs to pass the Resources to Prevent Youth Vaping Act, which will help provide FDA with the resources to better regulate this market.  Enough is enough. The health of our children cannot wait any longer.”

    The Resources to Prevent Youth Vaping Act increases the total amount that will be collected in tobacco user fees by $100 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 and indexes that amount to inflation for future years. The bill also authorizes FDA to collect user fees from all manufacturers of products that have been deemed as tobacco products by FDA, including e-cigarettes, according to Durbin.

    Currently, manufacturers of traditional combustible tobacco products pay into FDA user fees, but e-cigarette companies are exempt due to a loophole in the law. The amount collected from individual e-cigarette manufacturers will be proportional to their share of the overall tobacco market, as determined by FDA. FDA would be able to use this additional revenue from e-cigarette user fees to conduct safety review of vaping products, prevent sales of e-cigarettes to minors, help support efforts to educate youth on the dangers of e-cigarettes and increase the agency’s oversight and enforcement capabilities.  

    Earlier this year, Durbin introduced the bicameral Tobacco Tax Equity Act to reduce youth tobacco use by closing loopholes in the tax code that have long been exploited by the tobacco industry to avoid regulation and taxes for their products. The bill would also apply tax parity across all tobacco products, including establishing the first federal e-cigarette tax and increased the tobacco tax rate for the first time in a decade.

  • New Taipei Prepares To Ban Underage Vaping

    New Taipei Prepares To Ban Underage Vaping

    Photo: BUSARA

    Starting in August, people under the age of 18 will be banned from buying or smoking electronic cigarettes in New Taipei, reports Focus Taiwan, citing local government sources.

    Passed by the New Taipei City Council on April 29, the new ordinance is expected to take effect Aug. 6.

    After that date, people under the age of 18 caught vaping or carrying e-cigarettes will be required to enroll in a program to help them quit, the city’s health department said in a statement.

    Violators who skip the programs without a valid reason will be fined between TWD$2,000 ($71) and TWD$10,000, the department warned.

    Individuals or businesses caught selling vapor devices to people under the age of 18 will risk a maximum fine of TWD$100,000.

    Taiwan’s current law defines minors as people under 20, but an amendment that was passed last December will lower the age to 18, with effect from 2023.

    Meanwhile, the New Taipei health department said city regulations prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale, display and advertisement of e-cigarette products without the relevant permits.

    The maximum fine for violation of that regulation is TWD$100,000, and the businesses involved may be closed or suspended, the department said.

  • Boston Suburb Bans Sales to Anyone Born This Century

    Boston Suburb Bans Sales to Anyone Born This Century

    Photo: Ryan

    The town of Brookline, Massachusetts, will prohibit the sale of all tobacco-related products to anybody born after Jan. 1, 2000, reports Filter. The restriction, the first of its kind in the United States, is designed to prevent future generations from using not only tobacco but also nicotine.

    The law also prohibits individuals and companies from selling vapor products to anyone in that age category.

    In November 2020, Brookline officials voted overwhelmingly for the “first-in-the-nation Tobacco Free Generation,” paving the way for the current ban. On July 19, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey confirmed that the measure did not interfere with any state laws or the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, ensuring its legality.

    Public health groups lauded Brookline’s decision, which they view as a potential model for others to follow.

    “In addition to preventing a new generation from being addicted to nicotine—and facing the long-term health issues that come with it—Brookline citizens who smoke will be further motivated to quit as smoking becomes rarer around them,” said Lauren Huber, the executive director of Action on Smoking and Health, in a statement.

    Harm reduction proponents, by contrast, lambasted the idea. “Not only will enforcement of this become a nightmare, but it continues to push prohibitionist policies that inevitably send people to underground, unregulated markets,” Matt Sutton, the director of media relations for the Drug Policy Alliance.

    “The whole measure is ridiculous, especially if you imagine how it will function in 2030 or 2040,” echoed Clive Bates, a tobacco control expert and former director of ASH (UK). “It infantilizes adults, sets up illegal trade between older and younger age groups, and ultimately aims at creeping prohibition, with all the crime and abuse that will bring.”

    Brookline has a history of aggressive tobacco control. The suburb was an early adopter of indoor smoking bans, raised the legal age to purchase tobacco to 21 in 2014, and capped the number of tobacco licenses for retailers in the market. In the spring of 2019, Brookline banned the sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products, including menthol. Six months later, Massachusetts passed the same kind of flavor ban statewide.