This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Livornese — I saw the sign…and the answer is no—FDA-approved labeling apparently is not enough under state failure-to-warn laws, according to certain courts. Most OTC drugs, particularly drugs that have been around for a while, are primarily marketed pursuant to OTC monographs.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved PREVNAR 20 (Pneumococcal 20-valent Conjugate Vaccine) for the prevention of invasive disease and pneumonia caused by the 20 Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) serotypes in the vaccine in adults ages 18 years and older. Following today’s FDAapproval, the U.S.
If an FDA-approved carve-out could support an intent to induce infringement claim, the use of the “section viii pathway would be substantially deterred.” Plainly, the Government brief states “The decision below is incorrect.
For animal drugs approved under FDC Act § 512, the “testing phase” begins on the earlier of the effective date of an Investigation New Animal Drug (“INAD”) exemption or the date a major health or environmental effects test on the drug was initiated and ends on the date a NADA is “initially submitted” to FDA under FDC Act § 512(b).
Until recently, the FDA relied on a monograph process through which firms could bring OTC drugs to market without FDAapproval so long as it adhered to pre-set terms under the monograph. The FDA maintains a webpage with the full rulemaking history for OTC nasal decongestant drug products.
1067, the “ Ensuring Timely Access to Generics Act of 2023 ,” and it would fundamentally transform the playing field for NDA, ANDA, BLA, and aBLA applicants seeking to preserve their rights in the wake of an adverse FDAapproval decision. 110-85 (2007), as amended by Section 301 of Pub. That bill is S.
dietary supplement market has grown into a vast industry that has little in common with its DSHEA-era predecessor. But despite a recent attempt by the FDA to wrangle the industry into some degree of control, the agency has not followed through on a threat to go after companies that failed to go through a required premarket review process.
The FDA first proposed a rule on “Prescription Drug Labeling: Medication Guide Requirements” in 1995 , which was finalized in 1998. However, over the last decade the FDA and other stakeholders have acknowledged that there are opportunities for improvement. After all, companies already have FDA-approved labels.
This follows a contentious April 2023 meeting of FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee, at which the committee members raised serious concerns about the methodology of such a study and did not support its utility for a post-marketing requirement (PMR).
Effective as of 2007, Medicare has offered coverage for routine costs in clinical trials. FDA-approved IDE devices may be deemed qualifying under the Medicare Benefit Policy Manual, Chapter 14. The investigational agent in the trial has an FDA-issued investigational new drug (IND) approval and associated six-digit number.
Zidovudine showed promise against multiple HIV strains in cultured cells, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it for human studies within five months. By 1987, the FDA licensed zidovudine after trials showed it increased survival rates. In South Africa, there are about 150,000 new HIV infections each year.
This “keep selling” theory found some traction in two 2007 decisions, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. 2007) (en banc), and CareToLive v. Ohio 2007), but has generally failed to expand that foothold since. von Eschenbach , 495 F.3d 3d 695 (D.C. von Eschenbach , 525 F. 2d 952 (S.D.
We’ve been diligently preparing bottom ten annual lists since 2007, even though it’s distasteful, because if we don’t do it nobody else is likely to, and these abominable decisions deserve to be called out for what they are. Holley also allowed a “pre-approval” warning claim to escape preemption, largely on the same rationale.
A hundred years later, we detailed three rounds of litigation over Massachusetts’ serial efforts to ban, or at least substantially limit, the use of FDA-approved pain medications. For instance, Sorsaia primarily involves a challenge to a state trying to prevent in-state use of an FDA-approved drug for its FDA-approved use.
The core premise of Bexis’ article is very simple: Once the FDA has said “yes” and approved a particular drug for a particular indication (“intended use”) for sale in the United States, federal preemption precludes any state from saying say “no” and trying to ban that same FDA-approved drug. In GenBioPro, Inc.
In product liability litigation generally, plaintiffs have been allowed to invent all kinds of “alternative” designs as long as some “expert” opines that the design (even if never before marketed) is “feasible.” Are manufacturers liable only for failing to employ an alternative design that the FDA has approved for distribution. . .
1974) (applying Texas law), the Fifth Circuit had held: [T]o conclude that the maker of an unavoidably unsafe product did not act unreasonably in placing it on the market is not to relieve him of the responsibility to market it in such a way as to prevent unreasonable danger. 2007 WL 4042757, at *3 (N.D. 15, 2007); McNeil v.
2012), addressed a challenge to the application of Idaho’s Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to criminalize the use of an FDA-approved abortifacient medication obtained through an internet prescription and mailed to the plaintiff from out of state. 124 (2007), which would also be knocked out by Dobbs if it sticks.
We discussed these concerns – which have since crystallized into what is called either the “municipal cost recovery rule” or the “free public services doctrine” – more detail back in one of the Blog’s early(2007) posts. In other words, the generic manufacturers are not allowed to change the FDA-approved label. E.g , Morris v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 15,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content