On February 18, 2026, FDA Commissioner Martin Makary and Vinay Prasad, then-Chief Medical and Scientific Officer and Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, published a landmark policy announcement in the New England Journal of Medicine that a single adequate and well-controlled pivotal trial — supplemented by confirmatory evidence — is now the FDA’s default standard for approving novel drugs.[1] The agency’s longstanding practice of requiring two pivotal trials has not been a statutory mandate since 1997: at that time, Congress amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide that data from one adequate and well-controlled trial and confirmatory evidence can constitute ‘substantial evidence’ of effectiveness.[2] In some therapeutic areas, such as in oncology and rare disease, FDA increasingly has approved drugs on the basis of a single clinical trial, but, as a matter of general agency policy, two trials have been the baseline norm for decades.[3] That norm has now changed.
FDA
When Should Companies Disclose Drug Safety Risks?
In re BioAge Labs, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 25-cv-00196, 2025 WL 3038991 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2025)
Case Highlights
In October 2025, a federal district court dismissed securities claims against a biopharmaceutical company, BioAge Labs, Inc., arising from disclosures in connection with its initial public offering (“IPO”) concerning the safety of the company’s lead drug candidate, azelaprag, which was intended to facilitate weight loss by mimicking the physiological effects of exercise. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that BioAge’s IPO offering documents were misleading because they omitted discussion of a potential liver-related safety risk.
MFN Drug Pricing in 2026: Voluntary Deals Are Giving Way to Mandatory Rules — Five Things Life Sciences Companies Need to Know
What began as a series of demand letters in July 2025 has evolved into something significantly more consequential. By February 2026, sixteen of the seventeen largest pharmaceutical manufacturers have signed Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) pricing agreements with the Trump administration, which commit them to Medicaid price parity, MFN pricing on new product launches, and participation in TrumpRx.gov in exchange for three-year tariff immunity and improved regulatory positioning. But as those voluntary deals settle, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has moved to make MFN pricing mandatory for Medicare through two new models: GLOBE (Medicare Part B) and GUARD (Medicare Part D), both published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2025, with a public comment period that closed on February 23, 2026.
2026 Life Sciences Industry Outlook: Regulatory Environment
Welcome to Part 5 of our 2026 Life Sciences Industry Outlook series. Today, we are wrapping up the week with a review of the regulatory environment for life sciences companies in 2025 and our expectations for what 2026 could bring.
In 2025, life sciences companies faced a fast-moving regulatory environment shaped by the Trump administration’s priorities, including deregulation, the use of policy levers to encourage domestic manufacturing and development, and efforts to reduce healthcare costs for American consumers. We expect this unpredictable atmosphere to continue into 2026. In particular, we anticipate regulatory and enforcement developments in FDA regulation, drug pricing and reimbursement, government contracts, tariffs, and antitrust oversight, although specific outcomes and impacts remain difficult to predict.
White House, HHS, and FDA Launch a “Crackdown” on “Deceptive” Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising
The White House, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have announced that FDA has initiated “sweeping reforms” and “aggressive enforcement” to address “deceptive” and “misleading” direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertising.
Is There a Duty to Disclose FDA Feedback?
The Trustees of Welfare & Pension Funds of Local 464A – Pension Fund v. Medtronic PLC, 726 F. Supp. 3d 938 (D. Minn. 2024).
Case Highlights
On March 28, 2024, a federal district court held that positive statements about the prospect of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a company’s latest product were not sufficiently alleged to be false or misleading even though the company did not disclose that it had received a Form 483—a form issued by the FDA following an inspection that lists objectionable conditions an investigator believes violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other related acts.
Potential Impacts of Most-Favored-Nation Executive Order on Ex-US License Agreements
Introduction
On May 12, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients”. This order aims to address the perceived imbalance where the United States funds a significant portion of global pharmaceutical profits and pays high prices, while drug manufacturers offer deep discounts to access foreign markets, subsidizing those lower prices through higher prices in the United States. The stated purpose of the Executive Order is to ensure that Americans are not forced to pay almost three times more for the same medicines and have access to the most-favored-nation (MFN) price.
Trump Administration Revives Possibility of MFN Drug Pricing: Key Implications for the Life Sciences Industry
On May 12, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (“EO” or “Order”) “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” aimed at significantly reducing U.S. prescription drug prices by aligning them with the lowest prices paid by other developed nations. According to the EO, drug manufacturers “deeply discount their products to access foreign markets and subsidize that decrease through enormously high prices in the United States.” Seeking to rectify this “egregious imbalance,” the EO announced the following policy: “Americans must therefore have access to the most-favored-nation price for these products… [and] should drug manufacturers fail to offer American consumers the most-favored-nation lowest price, [the] Administration will take additional aggressive action.”
Missed PDUFA Targets: Context, Concerns, and the Case of Stealth BioTherapeutics
The FDA’s commitment to timely drug approvals under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) has been a cornerstone of its regulatory framework. Historically, the agency has maintained a high success rate in meeting its PDUFA goals; however, a handful of delays will typically occur each year for largely idiosyncratic reasons. Since 2021, when the FDA experienced delays due to challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA has generally met or exceeded 90% of its review performance goals for new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs). However, recent regulatory upheaval at the FDA has prompted discussions of a potential decline in the previously reliable response rates and the implications for biotech companies and patients awaiting new therapies.
FDA’s Roadmap to Reducing Preclinical Animal Safety Studies: Six Things to Know
On April 10, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new initiative to explore ways to reduce preclinical animal safety studies for human drugs and biological products, beginning with an approach to allowing the use of “New Approach Methodologies” (NAMs) in lieu of animal testing for eligible investigational monoclonal antibodies.[1] The agency’s plan marks a significant departure from decades of agency practice, in which life sciences companies developing novel therapeutic products typically have conducted a number of safety studies, including pharmacological and toxicological studies, in various species before progressing to the clinical phase. Below are six key points for life sciences companies to know about FDA’s plans to incorporate NAMs into preclinical evaluations for human drugs and biologics.