Remove 2016 Remove Licensing Remove Pharmaceuticals Remove Testimonials
article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You The 51 regulations that FDA is currently working on

Agency IQ

An update on the Medical Device Quality Management System Regulation : In February 2022, the FDA proposed a new rule which would effectively transition the agency away from its longstanding Quality System Regulation (QSR) in favor of the ISO 13485:2016 standard. Read our analysis of that rule here and here. ]

article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You What We Expect the FDA to do in November 2023

Agency IQ

WUSF / AgencyIQ November 1 Initial deadline for NDSRIs Under a 2023 guidance document, the FDA has recommended that pharmaceutical companies assess Nitrosamine Drug-Related Substance Impurities for their products by November 1, 2023, with confirmatory testing due by August 1, 2025.

FDA 40
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Analysis Life Sciences Thank You What We Expect the FDA to do in December 2023

Agency IQ

The revisions will update the existing requirements with the specifications of an international consensus standard for medical device manufacturers, ISO 13485:2016. to provide notice and an opportunity for owners or consignees of the drug to appear before the Agency and introduce testimony prior to the destruction of their drug.

FDA 40
article thumbnail

The BFDs – The Ten Best Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

2023) (remote trial testimony cannot be compelled beyond Rule 45’s 100-mile limit on subpoenas) ( here ); Carson v. 2023) (HHS cannot force pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell unlimited amounts of prescription drugs at a discount) ( here ). They excluded bogus expert testimony under Fed. Bonta , 85 F.4th 4th 1263 (9th Cir.

article thumbnail

Unimpressed Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

The law presumes that licensed doctors know what they are doing. The prescriber’s] testimony, however, does not establish that he would have altered his prescribing conduct. Given this testimony, the plaintiffs could not “show that stronger manufacturer warnings would have altered the physician’s prescribing conduct.”