United States v. Caronia: Second Circuit Rules Manufacturers Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Off-Label Promotion of Drugs Under FDCA
On December 3, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a landmark decision in United States v. Caronia, holding that “the government cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives under the FDCA for speech promoting the lawful, off-label use of an FDA-approved drug.” In its opinion, available here, the court rejected the Governments interpretation of the FDCA as prohibiting manufacturer promotion of off-label uses and held that such a prohibition on manufacturers speech is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. This decision is significant because it could change the way the FDA continues to regulate drugs under the misbranding and adulteration provisions of the FDCA.
Under 21 U.S.C. § 355(a) of the FDCA, a drug must be approved by the FDA for specific use prior to being distributed into interstate commerce. Once the FDA approves a drug for distribution, physicians can prescribe the drug for both FDA-approved and unapproved (or “off- label”) uses. Courts and the FDA have long recognized the public value in allowing physicians to, in their best judgment, prescribe drugs for off-label use when in the best interest of the patient.
According to the FDA, the FDCA permits off-label prescription by physicians but does not allow “misbranding” by manufacturers through off-label promotion. The FDA has interpreted off-label promotion to be misbranding, stating that “[a]n approved drug that is marketed for an unapproved use (whether in labeling or not) is misbranded because the labeling of such drug does not include Ëœadequate directions for use.” (See FDAs Draft Guidance for Industry here.) It is important to note, however, that the FDCA and its associated regulations do not expressly prohibit the “promotion” or “marketing” of drugs for off-label use.
Alfred Caronia, an employee of Orphan Medical, Inc. (“Orphan”), now known as Jazz Pharmaceuticals, was found guilty of conspiracy to introduce a misbranded drug into interstate commerce in violation of the FDCA. Orphan manufactured the drug Xyrem, a central nervous system depressant, which contained gamma-hydroxybutryate (“GHB”), otherwise known as the “date rape drug”. Orphan obtained FDA approval for Xyrem for two indications: 1) to treat narcolepsy patients who experience cataplexy and 2) to treat narcolepsy patients with excessive daytime sleepiness. Due to the serious safety concerns related to the use of Xyrem, the FDA required Orphan to use a “black box” warning on its label stating that the drugs safety and efficacy were not established in patients under 16 years of age.
Mr. Caronia was hired by Orphan as a Specialty Sales Consultant to promote Xyrem. Under Orphans procedures, sales consultants were not permitted to respond to questions regarding the off-label use of Xyrem. Instead, sales consultants were required to fill out “medical information request forms” and Orphan would send information to the inquiring physicians. Any physician employed by Orphan as a promotional speaker, however, was permitted to answer off-label use questions. In 2005, the federal government launched an investigation of Orphan and Dr. Peter Gleason, a physician promotional speaker. The federal governments investigation was specifically focused on the off-label promotion of Xyrem. With the assistance of a government cooperator, who posed as a prospective Xyrem customer, the federal government audio-recorded Mr. Caronia and Dr. Gleason promoting Xyrem for unapproved uses. Specifically, Mr. Caronia was recorded as promoting Xyrem for use in the treatment of muscle disorders, chronic pain, and Fibromyalgia, as well as for treatment in patients under age sixteen. Xyrem was not approved for use in the treatment of these conditions or in patients under the age of sixteen. As a result of these statements, Mr. Caronia was charged and convicted with conspiracy to introduce and introducing a misbranded drug into interstate commerce in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a) and 333(a)(2). Mr. Caronia appealed, arguing that the misbranding provisions of the FDCA prohibit off-label promotion, and therefore unconstitutionally restrict speech.
U.S. v. Caronia: Decision and Legal Rationale
The question before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was whether the governments prosecution of Mr. Caronia under the FDCA for promoting an FDA-approved drug for off-label use was constitutionally permissible. In a 2-1 decision, the court found that “a conviction obtained under the governments application of the FDCAwould run afoul of the First Amendment” and vacated Mr. Caronias criminal conviction. In reaching its decision, the court relied heavily on the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in IMS v. Sorrell. In that case, the Supreme Court first held that “[s]peech in aid of pharmaceutical marketingis a form of expression protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.” In reaching this conclusion, the Court engaged in a two-step inquiry. First, the court considered whether the government regulation restricting speech was content and speaker-based. Second, the Court considered whether the government had shown that the restriction on speech was consistent with the First Amendment under the applicable level of scrutiny. The Court determined that because the statute set forth content- and speaker-based restrictions, it was subject to heighted scrutiny. Specifically, the Court held that the law, which prohibited pharmaceutical companies from using prescriber-identifying information for marketing purposes, disfavored speech with a particular content (marketing) when expressed by certain disfavored speakers (pharmaceutical manufacturers). Therefore, because “the creation and dissemination of information are speech within the meaning of the [Constitution],” the Supreme Court held that the Vermont law unconstitutionally restricted speech.
In reaching its decision in U.S. v. Caronia, the Second Circuit, like the Supreme Court in IMS v. Sorrell, engaged in a two-step inquiry: 1) whether the government regulation restricting speech was content-and speaker-based; and 2) whether the government had shown that the restriction on speech was consistent with the First Amendment under a heightened level of scrutiny. First, the court found that the governments interpretation of the FDCAs misbranding provisions as prohibiting off-label promotion is content-based because it distinguishes between “favored speech” and “disfavored speech” on the basis of ideas. Specifically, the court found that under the governments interpretation of the FDCA, speech about government-approved use of drugs is permitted, while certain speech about the off-label use of drugs is prohibited. Second, the court found that the governments regulation restricting speech only targeted one kind of speaker (pharmaceutical manufacturers), while allowing others to speak freely without restriction. Under the FDCA, off-label prescriptions and drug use are legal, which means that physicians and academics, for example, can speak about off-label use without consequence, while the same speech is prohibited when delivered by pharmaceutical manufacturers. The FDAs “construction Ëœthus has the effect of preventing [pharmaceutical manufacturers]”and only [pharmaceutical manufacturers]”from communicating with physicians in an effective and informative manner.” Therefore, the governments construction of the FDCAs misbranding provisions is content- and speaker-based, and subject to heightened scrutiny under Sorrell.
The court then examined the constitutionality of the governments restriction on commercial speech under the test set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission. In applying the Central Hudson test, the court determined that the governments regulation of Mr. Caronias off-label promotion is unconstitutional because it does not directly advance the governments interest in drug safety and public health and is more extensive than necessary to achieve those interests.
The opinion explained that because the FDA contemplated and accepted off-label prescription and drug use as part of its regulatory framework, “it does not follow that prohibiting the truthful promotion of off-label drug usage by a particular class of speakers would directly further the governments goals” of preserving the FDAs drug approval process and reducing patient exposure to unsafe and ineffective drugs. Moreover, the court explained that selectively prohibiting manufacturer commercial speech “paternalistically” interferes with the ability of physicians and patients to receive treatment information, which could “inhibit, to the publics detriment, informed and intelligent treatment decisions.” Therefore, the governments construction of the FDCA “provides only ineffective or remote support for the governments purpose” because it “essentially legalizes the outcome”off-label use”but prohibits the free flow of information that would inform that outcome.”
Moreover, the court found that the governments construction of the FDCA “to impose a complete and criminal ban on off-label promotion by pharmaceutical manufacturers is more extensive than necessary to achieve the governments substantial interests” because other, less speech-restrictive alternatives are available. For example, according to the Second Circuit, the government could create other limits, such as ceilings or caps on off-label prescriptions to minimize off-label use or to address manufacturer evasion of the drug approval process. Alternatively, the government could further develop guides to help physicians and patients differentiate between misleading and false promotion, exaggerations and embellishments, and truthful or non-misleading information. Lastly, the court suggested that the government could even prohibit off-label use altogether if the use of off-label drug use is exceptionally concerning.
The court did limit the scope of its decision: “Our conclusion is limited to FDA-approved drugs for which off-label use is not prohibited, and we do not hold, of course, that the FDA cannot regulate the marketing of prescription drugs.”
Because the First Amendment mandates that the regulation of speech “be a last”not first”resort,” the court held that the government cannot prosecute pharmaceutical manufacturers and their representatives under the FDCA for speech that promotes the lawful, off-label use of an FDA-approved drug. In its opinion, the court also explained that it construed the misbranding provisions of the FDCA as not prohibiting or criminalizing truthful promotion of off-label usage. For these reasons, the court vacated Mr. Caronias criminal conviction and remanded the case to the district court.
At present, the U.S. v. Caronia decision is only binding on courts within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit. However, we expect the government to petition for a rehearing or rehearing en banc in the Second Circuit, or for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Because it is highly unlikely that the government will do nothing and simply allow the decision to stand, the constitutionality of off-label promotion of approved drugs is far from resolved, even in the Second Circuit. This decision is one that favors members of the pharmaceutical and life sciences industries; however, it remains unclear how, or whether, other courts will join the Second Circuit in finding that manufacturer off-label promotional speech warrants protection under the First Amendment.
Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph will continue to monitor any developments in the regulation of off-label promotion of FDA-approved products. For more information, please feel free to contact us via email at email@example.com or via telephone at 305.350.5680.