Efficacy Review of Allergenic Extracts: Background (1972 – 1985)
Jay E. Slater, MD
Director, DBPAP
2/35
Today’s presentations
• Background• Allergenics efficacy reviews
– Panel 1, 21 CFR 601.25 (1974-1979)– Panel 2, 21 CFR 601.26 (1982-1983)
• Current evaluation process (2003-2011)• Safety of allergenic extracts• Assessments• Next steps
3/35
Allergen extractsaqueous extract products derived from several natural source materials:
• Pollens• Mold spores• Animal skin and hair• Insects• FoodsThey may be used for the
the diagnosis and treatment
of allergic diseases, including
allergic rhinitis, allergic
conjunctivitis, asthma, and –
in some cases – anaphylaxis.
4/35
History of allergen extracts
• First aqueous extracts: Curtis (1900)
• Systematic investigations on extraction method: Wodehouse and Walker (1917) and Coca (1920s)
• Early allergists prepared extracts in their own offices for use with their patients
Cohen and Evans, Allergen immunotherapy in historical perspective. In Lockey, et al. Allergens and allergen immunotherapy, 3rd ed. 2004
5/35
Allergen extract manufacturing
• Physicians began preparing extracts for others– Sheldon et al. A Manual of Clinical Allergy (Saunders,
1953) contains detailed instructions (30 pages) for allergen extract production
• Practice evolved to independent laboratories preparing extracts
• Laboratories evolved into licensed manufacturers (first license issued in 1920s)
6/35
Allergen extract regulation• 1902: Hygienic Laboratory,
Public Health and Marine Hospital Service
• 1930: National Institute (sic) of Health
• 1955-1972: Division of Biologics Standards, NIH
• 1972: Bureau of Biologics, FDA• 1982: Center for Drugs and
Biologics, FDA• 1987: Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, FDA
• Biologics Control Act of 1902• Food and Drugs Act of 1906• Food Drug and Cosmetic Act of
1938• Public Health Service Act of
1944• Kefauver Harris Drug
Amendments of 1962• Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/miles.html/http://www.history.nih.gov/exhibits/history
7/35
• Convened under 21 CFR 601.25: “For purposes of reviewing biological products that have been licensed prior to July 1, 1972 that they are safe and effective and not misbranded…”
• Data requested from manufacturers in 39 FR 1082 (4 January 1974) and 39 FR 21176 (12 June 1974)
• Panel met from May 1974 to August 1979• Panel report: submitted March 1981; published in 50
FR 3082-3288 (23 January 1985)
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Allergenics/ucm272115.htm
Classification panel
8/35
MembersClassification panel 1974-1979
• Paul Seebohm, MD– Associate Dean, College of Medicine, University of Iowa
• Elliot Ellis, MD– Chair, Pediatrics, SUNY Buffalo
• Ralph Hale, MD– University of Kansas School of Medicine
• David Levy, MD– Johns Hopkins University
• Frank Perlman, MD– University of Oregon Medical School
• Robert Reisman, MD– SUNY Buffalo
• Thomas Van Metre, MD– Johns Hopkins University
• Max Samter, MD (consultant)– Director, Institute of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Grant Hospital, Chicago
9/35
The Panel’s Task Classification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• >1,500 extracted substances reviewed
• Goals:– Evaluate safety and efficacy in accordance
with §601.25– Review labeling– Submit report on conclusions and
recommendations
10/35
Standards for Safety and Efficacy Classification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Standards defined for safety in §601.25– “…relative freedom from harmful effect…”– “Proof shall consist of adequate tests by
methods reasonably applicable…including results of significant human experience”
11/35
Standards for Safety and Efficacy Classification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Standards defined for efficacy in §601.25– “reasonable expectation that..the biological product…
will serve a clinically significant function in the diagnosis…treatment…of disease”
– “Proof…shall consist of controlled clinical investigations as described in §314.126…unless this requirement is waived” because:
• “Not reasonably applicable” or• Not “essential to the investigation” and• An “alternative methods of investigation is adequate to
substantiate effectiveness”
12/35
Product Classification Categories Defined in 21 CFR 601.25
• Category I: safe; effective; and not misbranded• Category II: unsafe; ineffective; or misbranded• Category III: data insufficient for classification
– IIIA: thought to have favorable risk-benefit ratio; remain on the market pending completion of testing
– IIIB: thought to have unfavorable risk-benefit ratio; removal from the market pending completion of testing
13/35
Immunotherapy evidence standardsClassification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Panel established the following criteria for evidence of immunotherapy efficacy – Conclusive– Acceptable– Circumstantial– Insufficient
50 FR 3093
14/35
Immunotherapy evidence standardsClassification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Conclusive Evidence• Effective in skin test diagnosis, and• Placebo-controlled reduction in symptoms, and• In vitro changes
– Specific IgG decreases– Seasonal rise in IgE blunted– Specific IgE decreases– Histamine release decreases
50 FR 3093
15/35
Immunotherapy evidence standardsClassification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Acceptable Evidence• Effective in skin test diagnosis, and• Long experience suggests reduction in symptoms,
and• In vitro changes
– Specific IgG decreases– Seasonal rise in IgE blunted– Specific IgE decreases– Histamine release decreases
50 FR 3093
16/35
Immunotherapy evidence standardsClassification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Circumstantial Evidence• Effective in skin test diagnosis, and• Long experience suggests reduction in symptoms
• Insufficient Evidence• Not effective in skin test diagnosis• Anecdotal reduction in symptoms• No in vitro changes
50 FR 3093
17/35
Category I(= safe; effective; and not misbranded)Classification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Conclusive evidence; or
• Acceptable evidence, along with– Widespread acceptance and use– Clinical syndrome documented– Favorable in vitro changes– Systematic observation of possible AEs – Natural history understood
50 FR 3094
18/35
Category IIIA(= data insufficient for classification; favorable
risk/benefit; may remain on market)Classification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Acceptable evidence
• Circumstantial evidence
50 FR 3094
19/35
Category IIIB (= data insufficient for classification; unfavorable risk/benefit; may not
remain on market)Classification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Insufficient evidence
• May be assigned to II depending on – Strength of data– Lack of safety– Risk/benefit
50 FR 3094
20/35
Skin test diagnosis
Immunotherapy In vitro changes
Panel I classification
Conclusive Effective Placebo-controlled reduction in symptoms
Yes I
Acceptable Effective Reduction in symptoms, “long experience”
Yes I or IIIA
Circumstantial Effective Reduction in symptoms, “long experience”
No IIIA
Insufficient Not effective Anecdotal evidence only No II or IIIB
21/35
Panel recommendationsClassification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
DiagnosisTherapy
(foods not included)
I 26% 1%
II 0% 0%
IIIA 48% 65%
IIIB 26% 34%
22/35
Panel recommendationsClassification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Manufacturing principles
• Studies for IIIA products
• Standardization
50 FR 3116-3123
23/35
Studies on IIIA productsClassification panel 1974-1979 (601.25)
• Panel Recommendations:– Design collaborative studies– Allow inference among related allergens– Obtain FDA approval for studies– Separate protocols for diagnosis and
immunotherapy– For some extracts, these requirements may be
modified– In vitro data may be acceptable in some cases
50 FR 3116-3123
24/35
FDA responses to Panel’s recommendations on IIIA products
• Recommendations regarding further testing of IIIA products superceded by a new rule (21 CFR 601.26) establishing a reclassification review panel– 47 FR 44062 (5 October 1982)
25/35
Today’s presentations• Background• Allergenics efficacy reviews
– Panel 1, 21 CFR 601.25 (1974-1979)– Panel 2, 21 CFR 601.26 (1982-1983)
• Current evaluation process (2003-2011)• Safety of allergenic extracts• Assessments• Next steps
26/35
Reclassification panel
• Convened under 21 CFR 601.26: IIIA products to be reclassified as I or II
• Panel met from 19 November 1982 to 4 June 1983
• Panel report submitted December 1983
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Allergenics/ucm272115.htm
27/35
MembersReclassification panel 1982-1983 (601.26)• Paul Seebohm, MD*
– Associate Dean, College of Medicine, University of Iowa• Elliot Ellis, MD*
– Chair, Pediatrics, SUNY Buffalo• Clifton Furukawa, MD
– University of Washington• Ralph Hale, MD*
– Kansas University Medical Center• David Levy, MD*
– Johns Hopkins University• Floyd Malveaux, MD
– Chair, Allergy, Howard University Hospital• Thomas Van Metre, MD*
– Johns Hopkins University• Robert Reisman, MD* (consultant)
– SUNY Buffalo * on previous panel
28/35
Guidelines for reclassification of a Category IIIA product to Category I Reclassification panel 1982-1983 (601.26)
• Accumulated evidence indicates that the extract is safe• Derived from well-defined source material• Definable or measurable constituents and is capable of
being standardized• Demonstrated to be effective by skin testing in allergic
and non-allergic subjects and/or RAST or is closely analogous to products shown to be effective
• Properly labeled• [For IT, valid clinical study of product or analogous
product]Page 7, at
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Allergenics/UCM271333.pdf
29/35
Skin test diagnosis
Immunotherapy In vitro changes
Panel I classification
Conclusive Effective Placebo-controlled reduction in symptoms
Yes I
Acceptable Effective Reduction in symptoms, “long experience”
Yes I or IIIA
Circumstantial Effective Reduction in symptoms, “long experience”
No IIIA
Insufficient Not effective Anecdotal evidence only No II or IIIB
30/35
Skin test diagnosis
Immunotherapy In vitro changes
Panel I classification
Conclusive Effective Placebo-controlled reduction in symptoms
Yes I
Acceptable Effective Reduction in symptoms, “long experience”
Yes I
Circumstantial Effective Reduction in symptoms, “long experience”
No I
Insufficient Not effective Anecdotal evidence only No II or IIIB
31/35
Panel recommendations Reclassification panel 1982-1983 (601.26)
(excludes former IIIB insects/foods)
DiagnosisTherapy
(foods not included)
I 83% 67%
II 17% 33%
32/35
Panel recommendations
DiagnosisTherapy,
foods not included
I 83% 67%
II 17% 33%
DiagnosisTherapy,
foods not included
I 26% 1%
II 0% 0%
IIIA 48% 65%
IIIB 26% 34%
Classification panel 1974-1979 Reclassification panel 1982-1983
(601.25) (601.26) (excludes former IIIB insects/foods)
33/35
This bar graph shows how Panel 2 assessed allergen extracts according to their classification by Panel 1. For products found by Panel 1 to be category 1, Panel 2 reclassified nearly all into category I as well. For category IIIA, about 90% were reclassified into category I. And for IIIB, about half were
placed in category I.
Panel 2 evaluations of Panel 1 products
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
I II IIIA IIIB
Panel 1 category
Per
cen
t p
lace
d in
ca
teg
ory
I b
y P
anel
2
34/35
Follow-up to the activities of the efficacy review panels
• Panel 1 report (issued January 1985):– Category IIIB allergenic products were
voluntarily removed from the market
• Panel 2 report for allergenics not published or implemented
35/35
Today’s presentations
• Background• Allergenics efficacy reviews
– Panel 1, 21 CFR 601.25 (1974-1979)– Panel 2, 21 CFR 601.26 (1982-1983)
• Current evaluation process (2003-2011)• Safety of allergenic extracts• Assessments• Next steps
Top Related