Several lines of evidence suggest that children born via Cesarean section (C-section) are at greater risk for adverse health outcomes including allergies, asthma and obesity. Vaginal seeding is a medical procedure in which infants born by C-section are swabbed immediately after birth with vaginal secretions from the mother. This procedure has been proposed as a way to transfer the mother's vaginal microbiome to the child, thereby restoring the natural exposure that occurs during vaginal birth that is interrupted in the case of babies born via C-section. Preliminary evidence indicates partial restoration of microbes. However, there is insufficient evidence to determine the health benefits of the procedure. Several studies, including trial, are currently underway. At the same time, in the clinic setting, doctors are increasingly being asked to by expectant mothers to have their babies seeded. This article reports on the current research on this procedure and the issues it raises for regulators, researchers, physicians, and patients.

Ten years after the enactment of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), competition in biologics markets remains scant and far from sufficient for lowering prices of biologics to the level of 80-90% price drops seen in generic drug markets. This reality is not a result of one or two cardinal reasons, but many. If lowering the price of biologics is the goal and competition is the means by which we seek to achieve that goal, then there does not seem to be a quick fix to address all of the many impediments to competition that plague biologics markets. Yet, certain changes to how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates and approves biologics may go a long way toward the creation of meaningful competition in biologics markets. One such change would be making original biologics' manufacturing information available to follow-on manufacturers.

As recognized by several commentators, access to biologics manufacturing information is key to increasing competition in biologics markets. Without access to such information, making follow-on biologics is difficult and expensive, if not outright impossible. This is expected to be especially true for the highly anticipated class of interchangeable biologics, none of which has been approved by the FDA to date. Yet, it has long been the position of the brand-name pharmaceutical industry (Industry) that biologics manufacturing information is proprietary and, thus, may not be shared. Congress has subscribed to the Industry's position, prohibiting the FDA from disclosing regulatory filings submitted by developers of original biologics, including manufacturing information, to third parties. That prohibition not only undermines competition in biologics markets, but is also wasteful, potentially unethical, and poses unnecessary risks to the health and safety of patients.

This article makes the case for FDA sharing of original biologics manufacturing information with follow-on biologics developers. It is informed by the similar legal and commercial circumstances in the area of pesticides and the regulatory regime established by Congress in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The article reviews the FIFRA regime, including its upholding as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, and then examines its applicability to the area of biologics. The article concludes with a proposal for a similar regime to be incorporated into the pathway for approval of follow-on biologics as a means of increasing competition in biologics markets.

The success of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as a treatment for Clostrioides difficile infection (CDI) has stirred excitement about the potential for microbiota transplantation as a therapy for a wide range of diseases and conditions. In this article, we discuss vaginal microbiota transplantation (VMT) as “the next frontier” in microbiota transplantation and identify the medical, regulatory, and ethical challenges related to this nascent field. We further discuss what we anticipate will be the first context for testing VMT in clinical trials, prevention of the recurrence of a condition referred to as bacterial vaginosis (BV). We also compare clinical aspects of VMT with FMT and comment on how VMT may be similar to or different from FMT in ways that may affect research design and regulatory decisions.

Multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs) are a public health threat that have reduced the effectiveness of many available antibiotics. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) have been tasked with reducing antibiotic use and therefore the emergence of MDROs. While fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) has been proposed as therapy to reduce patient colonization of MDROs, this will require additional evidence to support an expansion of the current clinical indication for FMT. This article discusses the evidence and ethics of the expanded utilization of FMT by ASPs for reasons other than severe recurrent or refractory Clostridioides (formerly Clostridium) difficile infection.

This article argues that current data for the safety and efficacy of fecal microbiota transplants as a treatment for any indication, including recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection, is low-quality. It develops a governance proposal that encourages production of high-quality evidence by incentivizing well-designed RCTs of stool and stoolderived microbial products. The proposal would require that FDA change its current enforcement approach, but it would not require any change in statutes or regulations.

Regulatory agencies vary widely in their classification of FMT, with significant impact on patient access. This article conducts a global survey of national regulations and collates existing FMT classification statuses, ultimately suggesting that the human cell and tissue product designation best fits FMT's characteristics and that definitional objectives to that classification may be overcome.

In this article, the authors explore the impact of a potential future regulatory decision by FDA whether or not to continue its enforcement discretion policy allowing physicians to perform, and stool banks to sell, stool product for fecal microbiota transplantation as a treatment for recurrent Clostridium Difficile infection without an Investigative New Drug (IND) application. The paper looks at the Agency's regulatory options in light of the current gut microbiota based products that are in the FDA pipeline for drug approval and the potential impact and repercussions of their approval on FDA action. In laying out FDA's options we consider the implications of market exclusivity and off-label use of newly approved drugs. Ultimately, we explore the potential impact of FDA's decision on patients, research, and innovation.

Persons with dementia often prefer to participate in decisions about their health care, but may be prevented from doing so because healthcare decision-making law facilitates use of advance directives or surrogate decision makers for persons with decisional impairments such as dementia. Federal and state disability law provide alternative decision-making models that do not prevent persons with mild to moderate dementia from making their own healthcare decisions at the time the decision needs to be made. In order to better promote autonomy and wellbeing, persons with dementia should be accommodated and supported so they can make their own healthcare decisions.

Brain organoid research raises ethical challenges not seen in other forms of stem cell research. Given that brain organoids partially recapitulate the development of the human brain, it is plausible that brain organoids could one day attain consciousness and perhaps even higher cognitive abilities. Brain organoid research therefore raises difficult questions about these organoids' moral status – questions that currently fall outside the scope of existing regulations and guidelines. This paper shows how these gaps can be addressed. We outline a moral framework for brain organoid research that can address the relevant ethical concerns without unduly impeding this important area of research.

Despite some improvements in access to evidence-based medications for opioid use disorder, treatment rates remain low at under a quarter of those with need. High costs for brand name products in these medication markets have limited the volume of drugs purchased, particularly through public health insurance and grant programs. Brand firm anti-competitive practices around the leading buprenorphine product Suboxone — including product hops, citizen petitions and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy abuses — helped to maintain high prices by extending brand exclusivity periods and hindering generic drug entry. Remedies to address costly anti-competitive activities include adoption of the proposed CREATES Act and modernization of the Hatch-Waxman Act by the Congress, and implementation of substantive modifications to the Food and Drug Administration citizen petition filing procedures. Given the persistence of these abuses, prescriptive changes are favorable to the procedural and clarifying steps thus far favored by the federal government. Extrapolating from the 37% price declines attributable to generic entry for buprenorphine tablets in 2011, our calculations suggest that implementing these remedies to facilitate generic competition with Suboxone film would have resulted in savings of approximately $703 million overall and $203 million to Medicaid in 2017.

Federal Indian law is the body of law that defines the rights, responsibilities, and relationships between three sovereigns, Tribes, states, and the federal government. This area of law has defined, oftentimes poorly, the contours of treaty rights, criminal and civil jurisdiction, economic development, among other issues. Much has been documented in terms of the implications of social, legal, political, and economic systems that perpetuate inequities amongst American Indian and Alaska Native populations. There has also been substantial research on health inequalities. Yet, there has been less discussion on the role of law in perpetuating these adverse health outcomes in these populations. The social and structural determinants of health are the factors and conditions, such as housing, education, and politics, that create health disparities. For years, law has been described as a tool to promote health and even a determinant of health. And while research has explored Tribal health laws and federal Indian health policies, more needs to be analyzed in terms of the role of foundational principles of federal Indian law in perpetuating health disparities. This article argues that federal Indian law is a structural determinant of health by linking health disparities to the constructs of this body of law.