Remove 2018 Remove FDA Remove Informed Consent
article thumbnail

FDA Issues Final Guidance on Informed Consent for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors

Health Law Advisor

Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) released final guidance on informed consent for clinical investigations (“Final Guidance”). This update follows FDA’s draft guidance, which was issued in July 2014, and supersedes the FDA’s “A Guide to Informed Consent,” which was issued in September 1998.

article thumbnail

Personalized Medicine: Consumer Concerns About Coverage, Affordability and Privacy

Health Populi

consumers’ views on personalized medicine comes from a survey conducted for PMC, the Personalized Medicine Coalition, and GenomeWeb , published in May 2018. This is important because in 2017, one in four new drugs approved by the FDA were designed to treat a small population, falling. This picture of U.S.

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. . . Janssen Pharmaceuticals , 2018 WL 1977258, at *12 (Mag. April 26, 2018); Cooper v. 3d 1223, 1233 (11th Cir.

FDA 59
article thumbnail

Stupid Expert Tricks Redux

Drug & Device Law

2018) (Etminan); Gerke v. While cosmetic talc is not a drug or medical device, the FDA also regulates it (the “C” in the FDCA). 2019) (Zambelli-Weiner); In re 3M Bair Hugger Litigation , 924 N.W.2d 2d 16, 19 (Minn. 2019) (Augustine); In re Mirena IUD Levonorgestrel-Related Products Liability Litigation (No. II) , 341 F. 316, 328-29 (D.

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).