Remove FDA Remove FDA Compliance Remove Trials
article thumbnail

Clinical Data Standardization in Clinical Trials: FDA Compliance in Clinical Data Management

ProRelix Research

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: FDA Compliance in Clinical Data Management appeared first on ProRelix Research.

article thumbnail

FDA End-of-Year Release of Warning Letters Impresses (or Depresses)

FDA Law Blog: Biosimilars

Maybe that’s also why FDA last week publicized the highest number of important Warning Letters of the year (compared with prior releases in 2023). 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.

FDA 59
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

A Thorny PMA Preemption Decision from Rhode Island

Drug & Device Law

Plaintiff’s primary allegation is that the clips have a migration rate higher than what was reported to the FDA. Since the clips are PMA, the first prong is met—PMA devices have specific FDA requirements. Plaintiff did not allege that the design of the clips deviated from the FDA approved design.

FDA 52
article thumbnail

Dealing with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Non-Decision on Standards Compliance Evidence

Drug & Device Law

A fourth Justice concurred in the result, treating the issue of standards compliance in Sullivan as a matter of evidence, and holding that the lack of a sufficient trial record supporting the relevance of the specific standards at issue in Sullivan meant that the trial judge’s exclusion was not an abuse of discretion.

article thumbnail

Perfect Defense §510(k) Compliance Win in New Jersey May Be Pyrrhic

Drug & Device Law

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.