There were plenty of highlights at the FDA/CMS Summit last week. Our colleague Roger Longman already shared his, singling out shrinking violet Steve Nissen and the decidedly less sexy, but critically important, discussions about reimbursement and drug development.For anyone worried about the boundaries between scientific exchange and off-label promotion, though, the highlight had to be the discussion between First Assistant US Attorney Michael Loucks and former FDA Chief Counsel Dan Troy (now with Sidley Austin, LLP). And since virtually every pharmaceutical and biotech company with products on the market is under investigation somewhere, shouldn’t everyone be worried about that topic?
On paper, the face off promised plenty of fireworks. Troy has been a passionate advocate of First Amendment rights throughout his career, and maintains that the recent climate of prosecution of marketing practices is chilling scientific exchange. Loucks’ Boston office has spearheaded most of the biggest investigations in the area.
But a remarkable thing happened. Instead of a shouting match, there ensued a lively discussion of the policy issues underlying off-label promotion cases—and several points of agreement that could serve as a basis for moving the debate forward.
The first point of agreement was one of philosophy. Troy was the first political appointee at FDA in the Bush Administration, so you know where he is coming from . But here is something you may not have known about Michael Loucks: “I am, believe it or not, a conservative Republican,” he said.
“I think the government ought to be, consistent with the rules, out of people’s pocket books and lives,” Loucks said. “However, if you have a set of rules that requires taking certain actions when you market a product, that set of rules has to be applied equally across the board.” Dan Troy couldn’t have put it better himself.
The more important points of agreement, though, came in discussion of the topics raised by moderator John Bentivoglio (King & Spalding).
Troy has been pushing FDA to issue guidance clarifying permissible forms of scientific exchange, starting with a policy governing dissemination of peer-reviewed medical journal articles that discuss off-label uses. The topic is so controversial that House Oversight & Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman announced an investigation of the guidance before FDA finished drafting it.
Loucks agrees with Troy that FDA guidance would be useful in this area. He even offered a new idea: having FDA create some form of advisory opinion process, modeled on a program already in place for the HHS Inspector General. Such a system would allow sponsors to ask FDA for clearance before conducting some activity that they worry might expose them to liability for off-label promotion.
Loucks also agreed with Troy’s position that dissemination of truthful, non-misleading scientific information should not be criminalized, even if it is about an off-label use. There has to be “something else” in the case, Loucks said—like an illegal inducement to a doctor, or evidence that the information was false or misleading.
The two also agreed on one other thing: the issues surrounding off-label promotion encompass more than prosecutors and manufacturers. Payors, prescribers and patient groups all have a stake—and strong beliefs—as well.
Look for lots more coverage of the current state of off-label promotion policy in The RPM Report in December.
Taking a look at this phenomenon using upfront payments as a proxy for deal value, above, and you can see what we mean. So while those biotechs that excel at drug discovery can in fact sustain themselves by selling IND-stage candidates, 
