Scrip is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Market exclusivity for Shire's VYVANSE upheld on appeal

This article was originally published in Scrip

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has confirmed that Shire Pharmaceuticals' attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) product VYVANSE retains its New Chemical Entity exclusivity status until February 23rd 2012. Consequently, generic manufacturers, including Actavis which had originally sued the US FDA in the District Court of Columbia, cannot submit an ANDA to FDA until February 23, 2011.

VYVANSE is lisdexamfetamine, a prodrug of dextroamphetamine, the active ingredient of Shire's earlier ADHD drug, Adderall. In its original suit, Actavis had claimed that FDA was wrong to grant exclusivity to the drug because the active moiety of VYVANSE is actually the older drug dextroamphetamine rather than lisdexamfetamine. After seeking public comments, FDA stuck to its guns, and the district court upheld FDA's position.

The Hatch-Waxman Amendments under which the five-year exclusivity is granted stipulate that the status can be granted to drugs “no active ingredient [...] of which” has been approved in a prior new drug application. Actavis maintained in its suit that because lisdexamfetamine eventually becomes dextroamphetamine in the body it should not be granted 5-year exclusivity. However, the appeal court ruled that the FDA's conclusion – that the entire pre-ingestion drug molecule is responsible for the drug’s activity (including distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) – is valid, and certainly not contrary to what Congress had intended when it voted on the Amendments.

Topics

Related Companies

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

SC010767

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Thank you for submitting your question. We will respond to you within 2 business days. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel