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
Considering the crucial role that the information generated from clinical trials play in the approval of new drugs, biological, and medical devices, it is only logical that the data garnered […] The post Clinical Data Standardization in Clinical Trials: FDACompliance in Clinical Data Management appeared first on ProRelix Research.
Perhaps FDA wanted us to remember 2023 as the year FDA succeeded in uncovering critical defects in drug and device manufacturing, and in critical trials. If FDA wanted to create that impression, it likely succeeded. They have great impact on most companies that receive them.
TBI was the first nationwide (or close to it) analysis of whether a given jurisdiction permitted, under state law, a “warning”-based cause of action against a manufacturer of an FDA-regulated prescription drug or medical device for allegedly failing to report adverse events to the FDA. at 1228 (emphasis added).
It is not evidence of the underlying attributes of the product that make it compliant with regulations or standards, which is presumably admissible subject to the ordinary Rules of Evidence. and [defendants’] response thereto, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing the evidence.
From a bottom-line perspective, the most significant result was that evidence of the product’s 510(k) clearance was improperly excluded, requiring vacation of the verdict and a new trial. North Carolina law rejects strict liability altogether. So do a number of other jurisdictions, including Pennsylvania in prescription medical product cases.
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