Amarin Pharma Settles First Amendment Claims Against FDA: Potential Implications

10 March 2016 Health Care Law Today Blog
Author(s): James W. Matthews Katy E. Koski

Irish drug company Amarin Pharma, Inc. (Amarin) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agreed, on March 8, 2016, to settle claims that FDA regulations barring Amarin from making “truthful” and “non-misleading” statements about off-label uses for its omega-3 drug, Vascepa, violated Amarin’s right to engage in constitutionally protected speech. The underlying claims and settlement may have important implications for how drug makers market and sell their products going forward.

Case Timeline

In a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 7, 2015, Amarin and five internists preemptively sued FDA to obtain declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that restrictions imposed by FDA regulations on the promotion of drugs for unapproved uses are invalid and unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The gravamen of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment challenge was that the threat of prosecution for misbranding based on non-misleading speech to health care providers regarding an off-label use of an FDA-approved drug is constitutionally impermissible. Additionally, Plaintiffs alleged that FDA had violated their due process rights because it has not clarified what off-label promotion it considers lawful following the watershed decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012).  There, the Second Circuit held that the federal prohibition on drug misbranding must yield to the First Amendment and be construed “as not prohibiting and criminalizing the truthful off-label promotion of FDA-approved prescription drugs” where the “off-label use is not prohibited.” Id. at 168-69.

FDA responded to the complaint, in part, by filing a letter to Amarin from June 5, 2015, stating that “FDA does not have concerns with much of the information [Amarin] proposed to communicate,” and that “FDA would not consider the dissemination of most of that information to be false or misleading, and . . . do[es] not intend to rely on it as evidence that Vascepa is intended for a use that would render Vascepa an unapproved new drug or misbranded.”

On August 7, 2015, the court granted Plaintiffs’ application for preliminary relief and declared that:

  1. “Amarin may engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of Vascepa, i.e., to treat patients with persistently high triglycerides, and under Caronia, such speech may not form the basis of a prosecution for misbranding”; and
  2. “the combination of statements and disclosures that Amarin proposes to make to doctors relating to the use of Vascepa to treat persons with persistently high triglycerides, as such communications have been modified herein, is truthful and non-misleading.”

On March 8, Amarin filed a proposed Stipulation and Order of Settlement, resolving its constitutional and other claims. The proposed settlement requires FDA to be bound by the determinations in Amarin Pharma and, further, to “contact Amarin with specific concerns or objections [regarding] proposed communications about the off-label use of Vascepa that Amarin has not yet communicated to doctors in promotion . . . .”  Amarin, meanwhile, must “assur[e] that its communications to doctors regarding off-label use of Vascepa remain truthful and non-misleading.”

The Outcome: Potential Implications

The outcome of Amarin Pharma by no means signals an end to litigation over restraints on off-label promotion.  In fact, a month after the August 7 ruling affirming Amarin’s free-speech and due process rights, another drug company, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Pacira”), filed a federal lawsuit against FDA in response to a warning letter claiming that Pacira’s non-narcotic local analgesic, Exparel, was misbranded because Pacira had promoted it for “new uses for which it lack[ed] approval, and for which its labeling [did] not provide adequate directions for use”; namely, “postsurgical pain if used in surgical procedures other than bunionectomy and hemorrhoidectomy.” Similar to Amarin, Pacira alleged that “FDA also sought to preclude Pacira from making certain truthful and non-misleading statements about uses of Exparel” in violation of Pacira’s First and Fifth Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedure Act. Three months after Pacira brought suit, FDA settled Pacira’s claims, rescinded the Exparel warning letter, and approved a labeling supplement that “made certain changes to the Exparel label in order to clarify that its indication was not limited to bunionectomy and hemorrhoidectomy procedures.”

Key Takeaway

FDA’s resolution of Amarin’s and Pacira’s claims may generate other preemptive, “me too” litigation by pharmaceutical companies seeking to engage in truthful off-label promotion of drugs. The larger questions of when and how FDA and/or the Justice Department will file misbranding cases involving off-label promotion in light of Caronia remain largely unanswered.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services