Eye on FDA

Last week, FDA released draft guidance titled “Scientific Considerations in Demonstrating Biosimilarity to a Reference Product: Updated Recommendations for Assessing the Need for Comparative Efficacy Studies.” This draft guidance reflects an evolution in FDA’s approach to determining whether a comparative clinical study with efficacy endpoints (a comparative efficacy study or CES) is necessary to support a demonstration of biosimilarity. Specifically, the agency notes that a comparative analytical assessment (CAA) is generally more sensitive when it comes to detecting differences between products than a CES.

On October 16, 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unveiled the first group of nine voucher recipients under the Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher (CNPV) pilot program, a program announced by the agency earlier this year that provides a path for accelerated drug review for companies supporting national interests as determined by the Commissioner. The identified areas of priority by the agency include meeting large unmet medical needs, bolstering domestic manufacturing and increasing the affordability of medicines for American patients. As previously noted, the new program, which is not defined in statute or regulations, aims to significantly speed up FDA’s standard 10-12 month review timeline to just 1-2 months after filing an application for a drug or biologic. The agency has touted the  benefit of recipients of the vouchers receiving enhanced access with FDA review staff and a “team-based review” model.

FDA recently released two draft guidance documents for industry related to cell and gene therapy (CGT) products as the agency seeks to advance the efficient development and review of safe and effective CGT products and fulfill related commitments set forth in the 2022 reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII). This latest guidance may be of particular interest to CGT developers and various patient groups.

On Tuesday, September 23, 2025, FDA published guidance titled “Consideration of Enforcement Policies for In Vitro Diagnostic Tests During a Section 564 Declared Emergency.” The guidance, a draft of which was published on May 6, 2024, specifies the factors that FDA intends to assess in deciding whether to issue an enforcement discretion policy with regard to in vitro diagnostics (IVD) manufacturers offering unapproved IVDs, among other devices, during a declared emergency. These factors include:

Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposed rule to revoke the color additive listing for Orange B, a synthetic dye historically used on the casings and surfaces of frankfurters and sausages. This action is part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) initiative to phase out petroleum-based foods from the American food supply by the end of 2026 and efforts to modernize the agency’s regulations.

Food dye reform has been an area of focus for the Trump administration as part of its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative, giving momentum to an effort the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had already started by banning Red No. 3 for use in food and ingested drugs. FDA has continued to prioritize this work by taking actions to phase out the use of synthetic dyes and move to natural dyes since calling for these changes earlier this year, as discussed in our previous blog on the related announcement by the administration.

Over the weekend, the Department of Justice (DOJ) did not file an appeal of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ decision to vacate and set aside the agency’s final rule on the regulation of laboratory developed tests (LDTs), titled Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests (the LDT Rule). The LDT Rule would have required laboratories to ensure that their offered LDTs met medical device requirements under a multistage phase out of Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) enforcement discretion policy. While the government’s decision not to appeal this ruling may not have been a surprise, questions remain as to how FDA plans to clarify its policy towards lab test offerings going forward.

On May 30, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services released additional information regarding the Trump administration’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 budget request. The release of these FY26 budget materials is timely as Secretary Kennedy and the Food and Drug Commissioner Dr. Makary have started to testify before Congress on the FY26 budget and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are moving forward with their annual appropriations work. Further still, the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies is scheduled to markup their FY26 Ag-FDA Approps bill later this week.

This week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in collaboration with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announced a series of new measures to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes in food by the end of 2026. This initiative is part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda aimed at bolstering food safety. Citing growing concerns about the potential role of petroleum-based food dyes in childhood diabetes, obesity, depression and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), the agency plans to establish a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition to natural alternatives.