Articles Tagged with FDA

Published on:

Drug Companies MoneyLet me state the obvious: companies sell you stuff with one purpose in mind, to make money. McDonald’s doesn’t sell you quarter pounders because the company believes what you need to live a better life is to eat more quarter pounders. The NRA doesn’t advocate gun ownership because it believes you need to own five Glock 9s (you don’t), but rather so the gun makers can sell more guns. Mercedes doesn’t make expensive cars because its board of directors hope to improve the world by selling you cars with heated leather seats. Every company sets out first to last to make money. And the more money the better.

So it goes with pharmaceutical companies. The general public may sleepwalk through the concept and lazily presume that the primary motivation for drug companies is to develop medications which cure diseases or which minimize the suffering from diseases. But in fact the motivation for pharmaceutical companies is to make money, and a lot of it. This is rather obvious and not a controversial point, and I’d like to believe that every “BigPharma” corporate board would agree with me. But it helps to keep this profit motive in mind when doing research on drugs you have been prescribed or which you are currently taking. And to be hyper-vigilant about assessing any new “wonder drugs” which hit the market.

“Off-Label” Drug Promotion

Published on:

Drug TestingDr. Robert Califf is a cardiologist and the departing Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. He resigned his post last Friday, on Inauguration Day. Recently he gave a speech regarding his thoughts on the future of prescription drug testing, and he urged lawmakers to respect the value of science in approving and marketing prescription medications. According to Matthew Herper in Forbes magazine, Dr. Califf believes “the way forward requires putting science above politics and focusing on creating new ways to prove medicines help patients without causing undue side effects. Throwing out the standards that made the U.S. a global hotspot for medical innovation is not an option.”

Dr. Califf offered remarkable insight on the high failure rate of clinically-tested medications, as well as the urgent need for medications to do no harm:

FDA Approved Drugs“The most recent empirical data that we have at the FDA is that approximately 92% of drugs that go into human testing don’t make it to market because they have unacceptable toxicity, they actually don’t work for the intended purpose, or they can’t be manufactured at scale safely. Of the 92% of drugs that don’t make it to market, “100% had a lot of really smart people who thought they were going to work. If you were just going to start guessing about drugs you would do a lot of harm, because most of them would do more harm than good.”

Published on:

supermoon-724384_1920-287x300If you’ve kept up with politics even a little bit, you know how much gridlock exists in Congress. It’s amazing that anything can get done in Washington. However, a new law called the 21st Century Cures Act just passed with tremendous bipartisan support; this law must be really good, right?

21st Century Cures Act: The Good

The 21st Century Cures Act has the potential to save lives. For instance, it will provide funding for cancer research, fight painkiller drug abuse, advance Alzheimer’s research and improve mental health treatments.

Published on:

FDA Open Meeting on Off-Label Drug Use

Communications between pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers and physicians are highly regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but the agency, as much as it may want to be, does not have the final say in all regulation. These companies have First Amendment commercial free speech rights (though they’re not as broad as the free speech rights individuals have) and there’s a tension between what the FDA wants companies to say, what these companies want to say, and what the courts say the companies can say.

The agency in late August published a notice of public hearing and request for comments concerning manufacturer communications regarding unapproved uses of approved or cleared medical products. The hearing will be held on November 9-10, 2016 in Silver Spring, Maryland, and in case you want to present information you must register by October 19. You could also send in written comments by January 9.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Transvaginal Mesh Warn LabelBetter late than never when it comes to warnings on potentially harmful medical devices, but the harm will only stop when the use of defective medical devices stops. Boston Scientific, a maker of transvaginal mesh and slings, is confronting the reality that its product can cause serious harm to patients. In June the company announced its products will carry a new warning label. Transvaginal mesh is used to treat common pelvic disorders in women, which you can read about here.

Boston Scientific is facing more than 36,000 product liability cases because of injuries the mesh has caused, including infections and erosion of surrounding tissue, according to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Transvaginal slings are used as treatment for incontinence and surgical meshes are surgically implanted to strengthen tissue in women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Cook IVC Filter LitigationIn every lawsuit the court issues key rulings which will impact the outcome of the case. By “court” I mean the presiding judge. Some court decisions end the lawsuit (e.g., a judge granting a defendant’s summary judgment motion). Some decisions kick a leg of the stool out from under one party (granting a motion to exclude one side’s key expert witness). As I have written about in this blog, a judge has great power and influence over every court case. One decision has the power to make or break the lawsuit.

Recently, in the Cook IVC filter multidistrict litigation, a federal judge has refused to bar discovery involving an allegation that Cook failed to report to the FDA bad results with the Cook IVC filters.

What Is Discovery?

After a lawsuit is filed, the defendants have the chance to “answer” the complaint (“yes, we admit that happened” or “no, we deny the truth of that statement”). After these “pleadings” are filed, the parties engage in formal discovery. In civil litigation, discovery is the exchange of documents and information between the parties. It is required by the Rules of Civil Procedure. It goes like this: one side will write out questions (Interrogatories) or requests for documents (Requests for Production of Documents). Unless there is a compelling reason to withhold the information, the other side must then prepare written answers and make all requested documents available to the requesting party. From there, the parties can build their cases for trial.

Continue reading →