• Decrease font size
  • Return font size to normal
  • Increase font size
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Drugs

  • Print
  • Share
  • E-mail

FDA's Decision Regarding Plan B: Questions and Answers

 

Please see Questions and Answers, August 24, 2006


1. What is emergency contraception?

Emergency contraception is a method of preventing pregnancy to be used after a contraceptive fails or after unprotected sex. It is not for routine use. Drugs used for this purpose are called emergency contraceptive pills, post-coital pills, or morning after pills. Emergency contraceptives contain the hormones estrogen and progestin (levonorgestrel), either separately or in combination. FDA has approved two products for prescription use for emergency contraception – Preven (approved in 1998) and Plan B (approved in 1999).

2. What is Plan B?

Plan B is emergency contraception, a backup method to birth control. It is in the form of two levonorgestrel pills (0.75 mg in each pill) that are taken by mouth after unprotected sex. Levonorgestrel is a synthetic hormone used in birth control pills for over 35 years. Plan B can reduce a woman’s risk of pregnancy when taken as directed if she has had unprotected sex. Plan B contains only progestin, levonorgestrel, a synthetic hormone used in birth control pills for over 35 years. It is currently available only by prescription

3. How does Plan B work?

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

4. What steps did FDA take in considering switching Plan B from prescription to nonprescription (over-the-counter (OTC)) status?

FDA received an application to switch Plan B from prescription to nonprescription status. FDA staff reviewed the scientific data contained in the application which included among other data, an actual use study and a label comprehension study.

On December 16, 2003, we held a public advisory committee meeting with a panel of medical and scientific experts from outside the federal government. The members of the Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee and the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health, met jointly to consider the safety and effectiveness data of nonprescription use of Plan B. Although the joint committee recommended to FDA that this product be sold without a prescription, some members of the committee, including the Chair, raised questions concerning whether the actual use data were generalizable to the overall population of nonprescription users, chiefly because of inadequate sampling of younger age groups.

Following the advisory committee meeting, FDA requested additional information from the sponsor pertaining to adolescent use. The sponsor submitted this additional information to FDA in support of their pending application to change Plan B from a prescription to an over-the-counter product. This additional information was extensive enough to qualify as a major amendment to the NDA. Under the terms of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) performance goals, major amendments such as this may trigger a 90-day extension of the original PDUFA deadline.

Now FDA has completed its review of the supplemental application and concluded that the application could not be approved at this time because 1) adequate data were not provided to support a conclusion that young adolescent women can safely use Plan B for emergency contraception without the professional supervision of a licensed practitioner and 2) a proposal from the sponsor to change the requested indication to allow for marketing of Plan B as a prescription-only product for women under 16 years of age and a nonprescription product for women 16 years and older was incomplete and inadequate for a full review. Therefore, FDA concluded that the application was not approvable.

5. Why didn’t FDA follow the recommendation of the Advisory Committees?

The recommendations of FDA advisory committees are advisory in nature and the Agency is not bound to follow their recommendations. FDA makes a decision on whether a product should be approved after evaluating all data and considering the recommendations of the advisory committee.

6. Why did FDA issue a Not Approvable letter? 

The agency issued a Not Approvable letter because the supplemental application did not meet the criteria for approval in that it did not demonstrate that Plan B could be used safely by young adolescent women for emergency contraception without the professional supervision of a licensed practitioner. The issuance of a Not Approvable letter does not mean that a supplemental application cannot be approved. The Not Approvable letter describes what the applicant would need to do to obtain approval for the supplemental application. In this case, the applicant would have to either provide additional data demonstrating that Plan B can be used safely by women under 16 years of age without the professional supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer the drug or provide additional support for the revised indication to allow for marketing Plan B as prescription-only for women under the age of 16 and as nonprescription for women 16 years of age and older. Not Approvable Letter.

7. Was there a difference of opinion within the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDER) and Research regarding the final decision?

Yes, there was a difference of opinion within CDER. The scientific interchange of ideas is widely encouraged during the review process to ensure a thorough vetting of the issues. However, ultimately, a final decision must be made based on the evaluation of the data, taking into account all of the views expressed.

8. Is this FDA’s final decision regarding the availability of Plan B for OTC use?

No. The Not Approvable letter to the sponsor outlines what the sponsor must do to obtain approval of the supplemental application.

Wide availability of safe and effective contraceptives is important to public health. We look forward to working with the sponsor if they decide to pursue making this product available without a prescription.

9. Oral contraceptives have been used for four decades, and this product has been approved and used safely since 1999. How could FDA turn it down?

Oral contraceptives as a class of drugs are only available by prescription. This product has been used safely by prescription only and for the reasons already stated, it is not being made available for OTC use at this time.

10. The sponsor has talked about making the product over-the-counter for young women over a certain age and behind-the-counter for younger girls. Is there evidence to support such a scheme? Does FDA have the authority to carry it out?

The sponsor has submitted a plan and the FDA is examining its regulatory authority to approve a product marketed in this manner.

11. Did the FDA bow to political pressure in making this decision?

No. This decision was made within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

12. Dr. Steven Galson signed the letter FDA sent to the sponsor. Does Dr. Galson usually sign such letters? Why did Dr. Galson sign the letter?

No, Dr. Galson does not usually sign regulatory action letters. However, his opinion of the adequacy of the data in young adolescents differed from that of the review staff. He believes that additional data are needed and for that reason he made the decision to take final action within the Office of the Center Director.