Tag: PMTA

  • FDA to Provide PMTA Updates Every Three Months

    FDA to Provide PMTA Updates Every Three Months

    Photo: Niroworld

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration will be required to give premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) status reports every 90 days. The first reports are due on April 29, according to a revised order from District Judge Paul Grimm for the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

    The revised order, signed on April 15, granted a motion filed by American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other plaintiffs that requires the FDA to “forecast the percentages of such products for which it expects to have taken ‘action’ by June 2022 and quarterly thereafter.” Subsequent reports will also be required to state any revisions to prior estimates.

    The order states that “covered applications” means all applications for newly deemed tobacco products “sold under the brand names Juul, Vuse, NJoy, Logic, Blu, Smok, Suorin or Puff Bar.” Additionally, any product with a reach of 2 percent of more (vaping product brands deemed to have the greatest public health impact) in “Retail & Sales” in Nielsen’s “Total E-cig Market & Players” or “Disposable E-Cig Market & Players.”

    The FDA has approved some products from Vuse and Logic, while denying applications for Blu’s Myblu products.

    The decision was expected by the vaping industry. Speaking during Keller and Heckman (K&H) annual E-Vapor and Tobacco Law Symposium Feb. 2–3, K&H Partner Azim Chowdhury said the FDA had appeared to concede to the requested requirement to submit status reports on many of the remaining submissions under review, adding that the updated requirements requested by the anti-vaping groups appeared to be even broader than the original.

    It’s been more than eight months since the 12-month continued compliance policy for products subject to timely submitted PMTAs ended, but the agency is still sitting on some 88,000 reviews, including some of the vaping products with the highest market shares as measured by Nielsen.

    Requiring the FDA to provide the status reports comes with some controversy. Chowdhury says that it wouldn’t be appropriate for the protection of public health (APPH) or positive for the vaping industry if a requirement for status updates forced the regulatory agency to make PMTA decisions only to appease the anti-vaping groups or politicians.

    “These status reports could be used as a tool to pressure FDA to act—i.e., deny— applications quickly,” Chowdhury told Tobacco Reporter’s sister publication Vapor Voice. “Rather, we want FDA to review the science carefully and take the time it needs to determine whether a particular product is APPH.”

    In November 2021, the anti-vaping organizations whose lawsuit brought forward the deadline for filing PMTAs asked U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm to reopen the case. The plaintiffs asked him to require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regularly report on the status of the applications for the 10 bestselling vapor brands according to Nielsen rankings.

  • FDA Urged to Act on Remaining Applications

    FDA Urged to Act on Remaining Applications

    Photo: New Africa

    Several anti-tobacco groups have sent a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging the agency to act on the outstanding premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) and pushing for the denial of all flavored e-cigarette products.

    It’s been more than four months since the FDA was supposed to decide which e-cigarette products can remain on the market, but the agency still hasn’t completed some of the reviews, including some of the bestselling e-cigarettes.

    “We write to urge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite decisions on the premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) still pending before the agency involving the flavored e-cigarette products, including those with menthol flavoring and, based on the best available scientific evidence, deny the pending applications for all nontobacco flavored e-cigarettes in order to protect the nation’s young people from the health harms of these products,” the letter said.

    The letter was signed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Heart Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, among others.

    “Every day that FDA delays action, more of our kids remain at risk,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “While the FDA has ruled on applications from a lot of small companies, it hasn’t ruled on the applications from the large companies whose products are being used by a majority of kids.”

    American Vaping Association President Gregory Conley pointed to data showing that youth vaping has been declining. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), use of e-cigarettes went down among middle school and high school students from 2019 to 2020.

    But even with the drop, the CDC said it “estimated that more than 2 million U.S. middle [school] and high school students reported currently using e-cigarettes in 2021.”

  • Health Groups Demand Regular PMTA Updates

    Health Groups Demand Regular PMTA Updates

    Photo: Ulf

    The health groups that brought forward the submission deadline for U.S. premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) through litigation have asked the federal judge in that case to require the Food and Drug Administration to regularly report on its PMTA review process, reports Vaping360.

    On Nov. 15, an attorney representing the plaintiffs sent a letter to U.S. District Court Judge Paul Grimm. The groups want Judge Grimm to force the FDA to explain its progress on PMTAs submitted by mass-market vaping brands.

    “Plaintiffs will seek a modification that would require FDA to provide regular status reports to the Court giving FDA’s estimate of the date(s) by which it expects to complete its review of the Premarket Tobacco Product Applications (PMTAs) for all products for which PMTAs were filed by Juul, Vuse, NJOY, Blu, SMOK, Suorin, and any other brands that rank among the top 10 brands in market share, according to FDA,” wrote attorney Jeffrey Dubner on behalf of his clients.

    Earlier in the review process, the FDA announced it would prioritize its resources to complete assessments of the most popular products first. But when the agency’s self-imposed one-year review deadline rolled around, the FDA had made no decisions on the products with the greatest market share.

    To date, the FDA has ruled on only one mass-market vaping product—Vuse Solo, a dated product with limited market share.

    In addition to asking Judge Grimm to monitor the FDA’s PMTA review progress on popular vape brands, the plaintiffs complain that the agency has not taken any enforcement actions against companies still waiting for a PMTA decision.

    The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the FDA are the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Maryland chapter, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, and Truth Initiative.

  • Down to the Wire

    Down to the Wire

    Photo: kurgu128

    Uncertainty lingers about the future for vaping as the FDA decides the fate of the remaining marketing applications.

    By Stefanie Rossel

    Two months after the Sept. 9, 2021, deadline for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine the fate of millions of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs), uncertainty continues to prevail, and the fate of e-liquids with flavors other than tobacco remains unclear. The agency’s approach to e-cigarette regulation to date, alternatingly labeled a “fiasco” or “bureaucratic chaos” by critics, suggests that the U.S. may be heading toward a de facto ban of all nontobacco flavors.

    The 2009 Tobacco Control Act (TCA) gave the FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, cigarette tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco. The “deeming rule” of Aug. 8, 2016, extended the agency’s authority to electronic nicotine-delivery systems (ENDS), cigars, pipe tobacco, nicotine gels and hookah tobacco. As a result, deemed products are now subject to all TCA rules, including the requirement that any new tobacco product must receive premarket authorization from the FDA to be legally marketed.

    Following litigation by anti-tobacco groups, a court set the deadline for manufacturers to submit their applications by Sept. 9, 2020, and gave the agency one year to decide on them. The time frame presented a daunting challenge to the chronically understaffed agency. The FDA received more than 6.5 million marketing applications for newly deemed tobacco products alone. At press time, the agency had acted on more than 98 percent of these applications. Its actions included refuse-to-accept letters to more than 200,000 applications, a refuse to file order for approximately 4.5 million products submitted by a single company and marketing denial orders (MDOs) for more than 1 million nontobacco-flavored ENDS. Only three new tobacco products received marketing granted orders. The FDA still needs to rule on applications covering about 80,000 products, including those submitted by market leaders such as Juul and NJOY.

    David Sweanor

    Retroactive Change of Requirements

    Most of the MDOs were directed at vape products with flavors other than tobacco, including menthol. The manufacturers, the agency claimed in its MDO letters, had failed to provide sufficient evidence that their nontobacco-flavored products deliver a net public health benefit for adult smokers compared with the “threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use” of flavored vapes through either a randomized controlled trial in which a specific group of people is examined through intervals of time, or a longitudinal cohort study, which tracks large groups of people over an extended period of time.

    “It appears that the FDA is planning to significantly hobble the vaping category and thus protect lethal cigarettes from what is perhaps the greatest threat that business has ever faced,” says David Sweanor, adjunct professor of law at the University of Ottawa. “But how far this succeeds depends on many factors, not least what the courts will say about the process.”

    The requirement is now part of the PMTA rules, which the agency finalized in October 2021, and which took effect in November. However, it had not been in the original guidance for PMTA applications, according to critics.

    For most smaller vape manufacturers, the FDA’s ruling has meant the end of their business activities. “Like most vape companies, we cannot remain financially viable with only two [tobacco-flavored] products, and we will most certainly be forced to close our business after eleven years,” California-based Kai’s Virgin Vapor states on its website.

    Paul Blair

    Temporary Stays Granted

    Others have taken legal action. Arguing that the FDA moved the goalpost by retroactively changing the PMTA requirements, MDO recipients filed more than 40 petitions for review and stay on the grounds that the FDA had acted in an “arbitrary and capricious manner.” At the time of writing, at least five companies had been granted a temporary stay either by the FDA or the courts, and their products were back under review.

    Among them was Turning Point Brands, which may now continue to market its vapor products while its PMTAs are being reassessed. “We’re encouraged that the agency has acknowledged the robust nature of our PMTAs for a wide range of tobacco, menthol and other flavored vapor products,” Paul Blair, vice president of government affairs at Turning Point Brands, told Tobacco Reporter. “These open system e-liquids, sold predominantly in vape shops across the U.S., play an important role in providing reduced-risk options to more than 30 million adult smokers who may be looking for alternatives to combustible cigarettes. It is our hope that at the end of the PMTA review process, the agency will preserve the important off-ramp from cigarettes to a wide range of vapor products used by adults. Preserving these options will ensure that the diverse vapor marketplace can help ultimately achieve a more significant reduction in smoking rates across the U.S.”

    “The cases look strong,” Sweanor states. “Administrative bodies, like referees in sporting competitions, are challenged when they seek to change the rules mid-game. This is supposed to be an example of transparent rule-making in a democratic society. There is also a history, in the U.S. and globally, of vaping companies using the courts to overturn laws and administrative rulings that have overly restricted their products and marketing.”

    However, a second review does not guarantee that the products will receive authorization. Critics fear that manufacturers who have received an MDO will continue to appeal the decisions to maximize the time to sell their products. THR advocates hope that legal challenges will force the FDA to make more careful decisions.

    Uncertain Future for Flavors

    There are many indications that the era of nontobacco vapor flavors is coming to an end in the U.S. After bombarding the vapor business with MDOs, the FDA on Oct. 12 approved R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.’s Vuse Solo and accompanying tobacco-flavored e-liquid pods—the first-ever marketing granted order for an e-cigarette.

    Tobacco harm reduction advocates received the news with mixed feelings. While welcoming the agency’s acknowledgement that vape products can help adult smokers to quit cigarettes, they were disappointed that the order pertained to an outdated device with few users. Furthermore, while authorizing two Vuse tobacco-flavored e-liquid pods, the agency issued 10 MDOs for Vuse Solo nontobacco-flavored pods, claiming that Reynolds failed to demonstrate they were appropriate for the protection of public health.

    The agency is still evaluating Reynolds’ application for menthol-flavored products under the Vuse Solo brand. Menthol is another bone of contention: In late April, the FDA announced that it would initiate a notice and comment rule-making process to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes and all characterizing flavors in cigars and cigarillos within the next year. Vape manufacturers are hence unsure of whether their mentholated products will remain on the market.

    Advertisement

    Sloppy Assessment

    In its denial of providing marketing authorization to nontobacco-flavored e-liquids, the FDA referred to the most recent National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), arguing the study had shown that among the estimated 2 million middle school and high school students that were using e-cigarettes in 2021, more than eight in 10 were using nontobacco-flavored vape products. It did not mention that, according to the same study, the use of e-cigarette among youths has more than halved over the past two years, from 27.5 percent in 2019 to 11.3 percent currently.

    Critics have accused the FDA of being “obsessed with youth vaping rates and flavors.” The online publication Filter revealed that, in order to cope with the unprecedented flood of PMTA submissions before the court-ordered deadline, the FDA relied on a database query to identify the top-12 manufacturers with the largest number of pending PMTAs for nontobacco-flavored e-liquid products not in the third of three FDA review phases.

    This approach allowed the agency to filter out 85 percent of all pending PMTA applications. It then introduced, apparently for the first time, a “fatal flaw” standard. The fatal flaw review is a simple review in which the reviewer examines the submission to identify whether or not it contains the necessary type of studies. “The fatal flaw review will be limited to determining presence or absence of such studies; it will not evaluate the merits of the studies,” according to an FDA Center for Tobacco Products Office of Science memorandum cited by Filter.

    With its attempt at speeding up matters, the agency has done itself no favors, say critics. The road to regulatory certainty in the U.S. vape market will likely become even longer. “At this point,” Sweanor suggests, “the solution could be to announce reasonable product standards aimed squarely at reducing harms—as is done with foods—rather than treat each subcategory of each product as if totally independent of other products.”

    Stefanie Rossel is Tobacco Reporter’s editorial contributor. An experienced trade journalist, she combines sharp reporting skills with in-depth knowledge of the tobacco and vapor industries. Prior to joining Tobacco Reporter, Stefanie was editor-in-chief at Tobacco Journal International, where she worked for a decade. Fluent in English, German and French, Stefanie covers tobacco news around the world. She is based in Germany.
  • Filter: Some PMTAs Not Evaluated on Merits

    Filter: Some PMTAs Not Evaluated on Merits

    Photo: Ronstix

    Confronted with an unexpected large volume of premarket tobacco applications, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration subjected some premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) to only a superficial review, according to documents obtained by Filter.

    The report follows the FDA’s denial of more than 1,167,000 marketing applications since Sept. 9, 2021.

    The PMTA review process comprises three phases: Phase I (Acceptance), which essentially means an application has been received; Phase II (Notification or Filing), which entails acknowledging a company had enough information for its applications to be formally filed; and Phase III (Review), which involves a substantive scientific evaluation, followed by a marketing granted order or marketing denial order (MDOs).

    Overwhelmed by the large number of PMTAs and facing a court-ordered deadline of Sept. 9, 2021, the FDA in effect opted for a shortcut, according to Filter.

    The publication cites a memorandum signed on July 9 by Matthew Holman, the director of FDA Center for Tobacco Products Office of Science (OS). “Considering the large number of applications that remain to be reviewed by the September 9, 2021, deadline, OS will conduct a Fatal Flaw review of PMTAs not in Phase III for non-tobacco-flavored ENDS products,” it reads.

    The Fatal Flaw review is a simple review in which the reviewer examines the submission to identify whether or not it contains the necessary type of studies. “The Fatal Flaw review will be limited to determining presence or absence of such studies; it will not evaluate the merits of the studies,” the memorandum states.

    Filter suggests that CTP reviewers created what’s probably a new method to get through a backlog of millions of PMTAs, searched those applications for longitudinal cohort studies and randomized clinical trials without evaluating any other evidence, and for applications lacking them, did not advance them beyond Phase II and just sent out templated MDOs.

  • Clouded in Confusion

    Clouded in Confusion

    Photo: Prostock Studio

    Confusion persists even as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves an ENDS product for marketing.

    By Timothy S. Donahue

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has created quite the mess. The regulatory agency’s handling of premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs) has left many in the nicotine industry bewildered. It started with numerous refuse to accept and refuse to file letters. Then the agency began sending out marketing denial orders (MDOs). After publicly rescinding one of the MDOs—and with rumors circulating about additional rescissions—the agency is now being sued by at least 28 companies for making “arbitrary” decisions in reviewing PMTAs. The MDOs of least four companies have been granted a temporary stay through the courts or by the FDA itself.

    As of this writing, the FDA has granted the Vuse Solo device and two tobacco-flavored pods produced by the R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (RJRVC) the first-ever marketing orders for a vapor product. The decision shocked many because the Vuse Solo is an unpopular and outdated device, according to some observers. RJRVC’s main e-cigarette product, Vuse Alto, which accounts for the vast majority of the company’s market share, has yet to receive a marketing order. The Alto PMTA was submitted an estimated two years after the Solo PMTA, according to media reports.

    Sam Salaymah, president of AMV Holdings, parent to Kure CBD and Vape, called the FDA action a historic win for adult smokers that confirms e-cigarettes have been scientifically proven “appropriate for the protection of public health.” “[This] verifies that adult users are exposed to significantly fewer toxic aerosols and less harmful or potentially harmful constitutes than found in combustible cigarettes,” he says. “The science has spoken, and this is a great public health win for countless adult smokers looking to transition from deadly cigarettes.”

    Vuse Solo received the first-ever marketing orders for an ENDS product.
    (Photo: RJRVC)

    But while approving Vuse Solo tobacco-flavored pods, the FDA rejected five of RJRVC’s flavored products. The agency is expected to only approve tobacco flavored pod systems; however, the outlook for open systems (alongside bottles of flavored e-liquids) is anyone’s guess. James Xu, president and founder of Avail Vapor, says that eventually he expects the FDA to approve an open system and some bottled tobacco-flavored e-liquids. He says that studies have shown that very few youths use an open system to vape, and the FDA is likely considering that factor. “I think it is just a matter of time,” he says. “In light of the many lawsuits and confusion in the vaping industry, the FDA is now likely taking more time to review the PMTAs before making any more decisions either for or against a product. I think we will have an open system with a marketing order at some point.”

    Chris Howard

    As of Oct. 19, the agency had announced 323 MDOs, accounting for more than 1,167,000 flavored vaping products (there may be more unannounced). Many vaping industry representatives and public health researchers believe the removal of all flavored products would negatively impact harm reduction efforts in the United States. “Some vapers will undoubtedly return to smoking combustible cigarettes,” says Chris Howard, vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer of E-Alternative Solutions. “And smokers who might have transitioned to ENDS [electronic nicotine-delivery system] products may now elect not to do so.” The current state of the ENDS industry is what many industry observers predicted as far back as 2016, according to Howard. Given the entry of ENDS products into an already highly regulated space, manufacturers would need to be “significantly capitalized and possess material expertise to navigate the requirements” to survive FDA regulation, he says.

    “Unfortunately, despite a near universal view that flavored ENDS products present a tremendous harm reduction opportunity to smokers seeking to quit or reduce their combustible cigarette intake, cost-saving shortcuts during the premarket approval process are very unlikely to meet FDA’s threshold regarding the quality, quantity and type of data required to obtain market orders,” says Howard. “In the short term, this will have a significant impact on consumers as they will now have significantly fewer choices of both devices and flavors available. That said, I remain confident that given time, the industry will obtain more clarity, and a path for the return of flavored vapor options will materialize. FDA is the biggest proponent of harm reduction when it comes to tobacco and recognizes that providing adult smokers with options is important.”

    Jamex Xu

    In the meantime, MDO recipients are fighting back. Pursuant to Section 912 of the Tobacco Control Act, companies who receive PMTA denials have 30 days to petition for a judicial review of the decision. Days after it received its MDO, Turning Point Brands (TPB) filed a petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, followed shortly thereafter with a motion to stay the MDO. Just days later, the FDA rescinded Turning Point’s MDO. The FDA admitted that after “further review of the administrative record,” it made an error in TPB’s PMTA review, and TPB did in fact submit studies that the agency decided during the PMTA process were needed, after saying for years the studies were not required. “We are encouraged by the FDA’s decision to reconsider our product applications and look forward to engaging the agency as our PMTAs are reviewed,” said Larry Wexler, TPB’s president and CEO, in a statement following the rescission. “It is important that the PMTA process is transparent, purposeful and evidence-based. Our organization dedicated significant time and resources in filing our applications in accordance with agency guidance.”

    Azim Chowdhury

    The FDA has set an extremely high bar when it comes to authorizing e-liquid flavors, explains Azim Chowdhury, a partner at the law firm Keller and Heckman who specializes in vapor, nicotine and tobacco product regulation. According to Chowdhury, the MDOs essentially created a new standard for flavors: Applicants must demonstrate an “added benefit” of a nontobacco flavor that outweighs the known risk to youth use through the use of either a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or a longitudinal cohort study (LCS).

    “[The] FDA clearly jumped the gun with at least some of these companies in the way that they issued the MDO without giving the PMTAs a full scientific review as required by the statute. That being said, even if some of these lawsuits are ultimately successful, the outlook for flavored ENDS, to me, looks pretty grim,” says Chowdhury. “Even if we’re successful in these lawsuits and the MDOs get vacated and the PMTAs go back into review—which is good—the FDA is ultimately going to have the final say in what science is required and what is going to be enough for them to believe a flavored product is appropriate for the protection of public health.”

    Whatever data Vuse submitted for its flavored PMTAs hasn’t been disclosed publicly. Chowdhury says that it was likely robust and exceeding anything that most small manufacturers submitted for their flavors. “Right now, no one can tell you what it takes scientifically to get a flavor through,” he says. “Even in the best-case scenario, if we get the courts to say that FDA did this wrong, they should have done a hard look at the PMTAs, that they should have given companies fair notice about this requirement for RCTs and LCSs, they should have perhaps even gone through a notice and comment rulemaking period … even if one of those arguments win in court, it’s still only going to result in the PMTAs going back into scientific review.”

    Advertisement

    TPB’s stay motion (which the company dropped after the FDA rescinded its MDO) stated that the agency had moved the goalposts for data needed to receive a marketing order based on what the agency “learned” from the “review [of] PMTAs for flavored ENDS so far.” Nearly every MDO/PMTA lawsuit filed has followed TPB’s blueprint and is asking the courts to review the FDA order “on the grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious.” The FDA has already had MDOs for Triton Distribution, My Vape Order and Gripum LLC placed on hold by the courts, and the agency has told at least two other companies that received MDOs that it would rescind the orders or “not enforce” them, according to sources.

    Chowdhury said that technical project lead reports concerning PMTA reviews obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests revealed that the FDA performed a “box checking” exercise to see if an application contained an RCT or LCS instead of an actual scientific review of the application. “The first thing they have in these decision memos is, literally, a table where it says, ‘Do you have an RCT?’ No. ‘Do you have an LCS?’ No … then that’s it. If you said ‘no’ to both of those responses, they didn’t look at the rest of the application. This is mind-boggling because the statute, guidance and final PMTA rule, etc., all make clear that the APPH standard is a complex, multifactor standard. It requires all sorts of evidence and data, and it doesn’t require any one particular type of study. FDA avoided considering any of the other information contained in the PMTAs, including marketing restrictions and youth access prevention measures.”

    Advertisement
    Chris Allen

    The FDA’s rationale for banning flavored products is its desire to address what the agency has long described as an “epidemic” of youth vaping. However, recent evidence seems to show that the overall youth use of e-cigarettes in the U.S. is declining. According to the 2021 National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS), the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that youth use of e-cigarettes fell sharply in 2021. It’s the second consecutive year of major declines.

    Many in the industry say the FDA’s negligence in the PMTA review process and its single-minded focus in preventing youth uptake is going to create additional issues, further clouding the vapor industry’s outlook. Chris Allen, chief scientific officer at Broughton, a contract research organization (CRO) delivering analytical, scientific and regulatory services for the ENDS industry, says that the FDA might well be using the NYTS to justify the “flurry of MDOs” issued for flavored e-liquids. He also said the majority of the companies that have fallen foul of the recent MDOs are responsible manufacturers supporting tobacco harm reduction.

    “I completely accept that youth use is unacceptable; however, the issue doesn’t appear to lie primarily in open systems but a product that is currently outside the jurisdiction of FDA: a disposable containing synthetic nicotine,” says Allen. “Regardless of the product, or the source of nicotine, there’s no place for irresponsible marketing and distribution practices that keep adding fuel to this fire. I fear that the latest action is simply going to lead to a seismic shift into the black market and unregulated (synthetic nicotine) products, which will be near on impossible for the U.S. government to control. From my personal perspective, this doesn’t seem an appropriate way to support THR [tobacco harm reduction].”

    Timothy Donahue is the assistant editor of Tobacco Reporter. Since joining our team in January 2013, he has become not only an expert on the traditional tobacco business but also a well-respected voice in the rapidly developing vapor industry. Tim spends much of his time on the road, attending conferences and interviewing industry representatives. His networking skills, work ethic and quick mind are valuable assets to our diverse audience.
  • FDA Stays Bidi Vapor MDO Pending Review

    FDA Stays Bidi Vapor MDO Pending Review

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an administrative stay of its marketing denial order (MDO) for nontobacco flavored bidi sticks, pending the agency’s review of Bidi Vapor’s request that the MDO be rescinded based on product-specific scientific evidence in its premarket tobacco product applications (PMTAs).

    Bidi Vapor’s flavored Bidi Sticks may remain on the market without the threat of enforcement while the FDA reviews the company’s request.

    Bidi Vapor, which is part of Kaival Brands, submitted PMTAs for all 11 flavor varieties of its Bidi Stick. The applications ran over 285,000 pages and contained information supporting the products as appropriate for the protection of the public health.

    On Sept. 29, 2021, Bidi Vapor filed a Petition for Review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, seeking judicial review of the MDO under the Tobacco Control Act, the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the U.S. Constitution.

    “We appreciate FDA’s decision to stay, or put on hold, the MDO as it reconsiders its denial,” said Bidi Vapor Niraj Patel in a statement. “As we explained to the agency, Bidi Vapor submitted scientifically rigorous PMTAs that contained product-specific evidence demonstrating that the added benefit of our flavored Bidi Sticks to adult smokers outweighs any potential risks to youth, especially considering our stringent youth-access prevention measures and commitment to mature, adult-focused marketing.”

    “That said, we are still seeking a formal, judicial stay from the appellate court pending the outcome of the lawsuit,” Patel noted.

    The company has now filed a Motion for Stay Pending Review with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals citing the “irreparable harm” it continues to suffer from the MDO.

    Multiple companies have challenged their MDOs in recent weeks. In early October, the FDA rescinded MDOs it has issued to Turning Point Brands and Fumizer, placing their products back under review.

    According to Filter, Triton, Bidi and Gripum recently received some temporary form of stay, and My Vape Order has demanded a recission due to the fact its PMTA includes some of the same data and studies that also appears in TPB’s applications.

  • Court: Triton Can Sell Flavored E-Cigs Despite MDO

    Court: Triton Can Sell Flavored E-Cigs Despite MDO

    Photo: kwanchaift

    The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Triton Distribution can continue selling its flavored e-cigarettes despite a decision to the contrary by the Food and Drug Administration, reports Reuters.  

    In a unanimous opinion on Oct. 26, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that when the FDA last month denied the Texas company’s application to sell its products, the agency did not adequately consider Triton’s marketing plan to reduce the products’ appeal to youth.

    The court found the FDA pulled a “surprise switcheroo” from earlier guidance stating that manufacturers would not need long-term studies to support e-cigarette applications.

    The FDA initially said in guidance accompanying the deeming rule that it did not expect companies would need long-term studies to support their application. However, in an August announcement that it would deny a first batch of applications, the agency said that manufacturers would likely need studies that followed a cohort of people over time to show that their products’ use in helping adult smokers quit cigarettes outweighed the risk to youth.

    Triton challenged the agency’s decision, saying it had relied on the earlier guidance in its application.

    Multiple companies have challenged their MDOs in recent weeks. In early October, the FDA rescinded MDOs it has issued to Turning Point Brands and Fumizer, placing their products back under review.

    More recently, the FDA issued an administrative stay of its MDO for nontobacco flavored bidi sticks, pending the agency’s review of Bidi Vapor’s request that the MDO be rescinded based on product-specific scientific evidence in its PMTAs.

    According to Filter, Bidi and Gripum too recently received some temporary form of stay, and My Vape Order has demanded a recission due to the fact its PMTA includes some of the same data and studies that also appears in TPB’s applications.

     

  • Howard: Will Harm Reduction Prevail?

    Howard: Will Harm Reduction Prevail?

    Photo: Photolia Premium

    It could be some time before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues marketing orders for flavored vapor products.

    By Chris Howard

    For the past 10 years, we have ridden a rollercoaster together. We have experienced the same highs and lows and shared the hope that harm reduction will prevail in the end. Then, over the course of the past several weeks, the journey ended abruptly with marketing denial orders (MDOs) for so many. Not surprisingly, several question whether the vapor industry can ever recover.

    The FDA’s Recent Actions

    For what it’s worth, the recent actions of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should not have been a surprise to anyone in the vapor industry. We have known for several years that being part of a highly regulated segment would not be easy. In fact, the FDA made its expectations clear in its 2016 Draft Guidance entitled Premarket Tobacco Product Applications for Electronic Nicotine-Delivery Systems (ENDS). In sum, this document revealed that obtaining a marketing order for vapor products would require scientific expertise, extensive data development and very deep pockets.

    That said, the FDA’s rationale for such broad-based denials has raised questions among many. More specifically, the FDA provided the following rationale in its Aug. 26, 2021, news release:

    In light of the public health threat posed by the well-documented, alarming levels of youth use of flavored ENDS, the agency has reviewed the applications subject to this action to determine whether there is sufficient product-specific scientific evidence to demonstrate enough of a benefit to adult smokers that would overcome the risk posed to youth. Based on existing scientific evidence and the agency’s experience conducting premarket reviews, the evidence of benefits to adult smokers for such products would likely be in the form of a randomized controlled trial or longitudinal cohort study, although the agency does not foreclose the possibility that other types of evidence could be adequate if sufficiently robust and reliable.

    The primary question we are left to ponder is whether this balancing of interests exceeds the FDA’s standard for assessing whether a product is appropriate for the protection of public health. Based on Section 910 of the Tobacco Control Act, which describes the appropriate standard of review, it appears that this balancing is one of many facets of an application that the FDA is required to consider.

    Appropriate for the Protection of Public Health

    Section 910 of the Tobacco Control Act provides the FDA’s standard of review for new tobacco products:

    …whether the marketing of a tobacco product for which an application has been submitted is appropriate for the protection of the public health shall be determined with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account—

    (A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products; and

    (B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products.

    So clearly, the risk of initiation of flavored ENDS products by youth is relevant as is the likelihood of ceasing use by smokers generally. Without a doubt, the FDA has determined that evidence related to part (A)—cessation—must outweigh part (B), initiation. This risk balancing, in the FDA’s own words, is reflected in data from clinical studies or longitudinal studies demonstrating that adult use of flavored ENDS leads to cessation (or switching) outcomes that exceed the risk of youth initiation of tobacco product use. And yet, despite this seeming clarity, many questions surround this analysis. For example, by how much must adult cessation exceed youth initiation? What if both tobacco varieties and flavored varieties show the same or similar cessation rates? Has the FDA considered the reduction in use by youth resulting from the recent change in the age to purchase tobacco products to 21 when examining the balancing of risks versus benefits?

    These questions are likely to remain unanswered for quite some time. Many committed companies are already beginning efforts to satisfy the FDA’s outstanding requests for clinical studies and/or longitudinal data, but the development of data will take several months. Obviously, this is likely to do significant damage to an already fractured market—and even more potential damage to smokers seeking an alternative to combustible cigarettes.

    Flavors Are Critical for Harm Reduction

    Despite these tumultuous past few weeks, the FDA is arguably the biggest advocate for harm reduction. Given the agency’s desire to provide options to adult smokers to move away from traditional combustible cigarettes, it seems clear that a pathway for flavors to return does indeed exist.

    Along with the rest of the industry and many public health researchers, I believe that the removal of all flavored products would negatively impact harm reduction efforts in the United States. Some vapers will undoubtedly return to smoking combustible cigarettes. And smokers who might have transitioned to ENDS products may now elect not to do so. In the studies conducted at my company, E-Alternative Solutions, we demonstrated that adults prefer flavors and that flavors assist adults in transitioning from combustible cigarettes to potentially less harmful alternatives. Existing literature documenting the research conducted by others also supports this proposition. Moreover, anecdotal reports are easy to find on Twitter and multiple other social media forums.

    While it may not be apparent from the FDA’s recent actions, I do not believe that flavored ENDS are finished in the United States. While the bar appears high, I hope and expect, for the sake of adult smokers in this country, that we will see flavored ENDS on the U.S. market again. That said, it could take time until the agency issues market orders for flavored vapor products.

    What’s Next?

    The FDA’s recent decisions will likely prompt many to appeal and some to resort to litigation [at least two suits are known to have been filed already]. The FDA appears prepared to address these initiatives and is prioritizing enforcement of those failing to comply with MDOs and/or who are selling vapor products that have not undergone premarket review. While these activities are ongoing, many will begin longitudinal studies and the hard work to identify alternative methods to show the FDA that flavors are determinative in adult smokers’ efforts to switch from combustible cigarettes.

    Ultimately, we will have to wait while the remainder of the story unfolds. Hopefully, the FDA will be prepared to work directly with sophisticated manufacturers to ensure that flavored ENDS can continue to play a role for adult smokers seeking alternatives.

     

    Chris Howard is the vice president, general counsel and chief compliance officer of E-Alternative Solutions, an independent, family-owned innovator of consumer-centric brands.
  • TPB’s Marketing Denial Order Rescinded

    TPB’s Marketing Denial Order Rescinded

    Photo: momius

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has rescinded the marketing denial order (MDO) it issued for some Turning Point Brands (TPB) e-liquids. The products that had been denied are now back under review.

    In a letter addressed to TPB’s senior vice president of external affairs, Brittani Cushman, the FDA said it had found relevant information that was not properly assessed.

    “Specifically, your applications did contain randomized controlled trials comparing tobacco-flavored ENDS to flavored ENDS as well as several cross-sectional surveys evaluating patterns of use, likelihood of use and perceptions in current smokers, current ENDS users, former tobacco users and never users, which require further review,” wrote Matthew Holman, the director of the Office of Science at the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

    The agency indicated that it would not initiate enforcement action against the TPB products under review.

    The move comes after TPB challenged the MDOs in court. TPB has now withdrawn its appeal.

    “We are encouraged by the FDA’s decision to reconsider our product applications and look forward to engaging the agency as our PMTAs are reviewed,” said TPB President and CEO Larry Wexler in a statement. “It is important that the PMTA process is transparent, purposeful and evidence-based. Our organization dedicated significant time and resources in filing our applications in accordance with agency guidance.

    “We remain hopeful that the depth and range of our studies and data will persuade the FDA that the continued marketing of our vapor products is appropriate for the protection of the public health and that the agency will ultimately preserve a diverse vapor market for the more than 30 million American adult smokers who may wish to transition from combustible cigarettes to lower risk alternatives.”

    Industry representatives suggest the clerical error is a result of the rush with which the FDA was forced to decide on premarket tobacco product applications. The Sept. 9 deadline was ordered by a court in response to litigation by anti-vaping groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

    The MDO withdrawal has left some speculating as to whether the rejected applications of other companies would also receive a second look. Several companies, including Triton and Bidi Vapor, are currently awaiting court decisions on their MDO challenges.