Remove 2009 Remove Doctors Remove Marketing Remove Regulations
article thumbnail

Meet the Patient Advocate Panelists in Our Upcoming Webinar: Rare Disease Day 2023 Wrapped, What You Need to Take Away

Conversations in Drug Development Trends

I joined the FARA staff in 2009, and our team built a nationwide series of bike rides called rideATAXIA to raise funds for research. At Canary Advisors , we concentrate on patient-focused drug development, making sure sponsors, regulators, and other key stakeholders can better align with what’s most meaningful to patients.

Disease 52
article thumbnail

How Lume Whole Body Deodorant Was Inspired by a Genetic Disease

PLOS: DNA Science

Among the barrage of drug ads for cancer, diabetes, weight loss and more are those for Lume , a “doctor-developed whole body deodorant.” The earliest patent I found was issued in late 2009, for “Products and Methods for Reducing Malodor from the Pudendum.” ” For everyone. .” ” Lady parts.

Disease 88
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Women in STEM: An Inspiring Journey with Dr Jo Brewer

Drug Target Review

It set a precedent with regulators as to what is expected in some instances. Success in the haematology space has really been driving this from the beginning, which is not surprising as haem doctors understand stem cell transplants; they’re used to working with a lot of the sort of toxicities that can come with cell therapies.

Therapies 115
article thumbnail

Time for FDA’s OPDP to Fill the Gaps on Digital and Social Media

Eye on FDA

In the now distant past, enforcement from this office, then called the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) and later re-named OPDP, was robust, with the office issuing scores of letters a year (156 were issued in 1998). One of them was about the appropriate use of links.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

Mixed Bag of Holdings from EDNY in Class II Non-invasive Facelift Device Case

Drug & Device Law

As readers know, FDA reviews Class II devices for “substantial equivalence” to devices that are on the market. But, during FDA’s review process, the agency decided that the device was not “substantially equivalent” to devices that were on the market. internal punctuation and citation omitted). New York Stock Exchange, Inc. ,

FDA 59