Remove 2011 Remove FDA Remove Informed Consent
article thumbnail

SQA Regulatory Surveillance Summary | Monthly Update 2023 – January

SQA

” The reason: The existing document of the EU GMP Guideline dates back to 2011 and no longer corresponds to the state of the art in various areas or does not consider increasingly important new technologies for the GMP field, according to the EMA. ” The requirements for providers (e.g.,

article thumbnail

Malarkey ? The Ten Worst Prescription Drug/Medical Device Decisions of 2023

Drug & Device Law

FDA , 78 F.4th 2023), was the Fifth Circuit’s blatantly politicized attack on the FDA’s regulation of abortion-related drugs. The questionable allegations of that single complaint thus effectively trumped many years of the FDA’s science-based decision-making. The FDA, for one, advised patients to keep using these drugs.

FDA 52
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Confident Learned Intermediaries Defeat Warning Causation

Drug & Device Law

The prescriber] provided explicit, uncontroverted testimony that, even when provided with the most current research and FDA mandated warnings, as well as the information found in [defendant’s] updated. . . 2011) (no causation where “at the time of her deposition ? May 23, 2011) (no causation where prescriber “testified. . .

FDA 59
article thumbnail

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

Drug & Device Law

Since the FDA requires pre-approval of any warnings about off-label uses, preemption at some point should have been pre-ordained under the Mensing ( 2011+1 ) independence principle, but off-label use did not really figure in Zofran ’s analysis. The FDA’s five reviews of teratogenic risk all came to the same conclusion.

FDA 105
article thumbnail

Who Needs a Lawyer in the Eleventh Circuit?

Drug & Device Law

The plaintiff in Jacob sued the manufacturer of a Class III, FDA premarket-approved medical device. First, the plaintiff’s non-parallel claims were “preempted to the extent” that they would have imposed “alleged labeling or manufacturing requirements that are different from, or in addition to, those imposed by the FDA.” 341 (2001).