On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) revoked the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that permitted emergency distribution of chloroquine phosphate (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine sulfate (HCQ) from the Strategic National Stockpile. (https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download) The FDA concluded, based on clinical trial data and the continuing failure of treatment guidelines to support use of CQ or HCQ to treat patients with COVID-19, that “it is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of HCQ and CQ may be effective in treating COVID-19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks.”
Last week, FDA released guidance for life sciences manufacturers that produce medical devices and components “critical to public health,” including materials that support or sustain life, or are used in emergency care or surgery. If there is an anticipated (or actual) disruption that may result in a shortage based on increased demand or supply-side interruption, the FDA must be notified no later than seven calendar days from the onset. The requirement to notify the Agency applies to a broad range of devices and equipment, and lasts for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency.
The FDA’s guidance on this topic arises out of the March 27, 2020, CARES Act amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Those updates, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 356j, mirror similar provisions for prescription drug shortages implemented in December 2016. While the statutory provisions contemplate that a device manufacturer would provide notice to the FDA of an anticipated shortage or interruption at least six months in advance, or “as soon as is practicable,” the recent guidance recognizes that this may not be possible under current market conditions.
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has in turn remanded the case to the district court to determine whether state law claims are preempted by federal law in the 500+ lawsuits pending regarding the medication Fosamax in Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Albrecht. As previously discussed on this blog in May 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that the issue of federal preemption is one to be decided by the court and not a jury, while somewhat clarifying the “clear evidence” standard governing the analysis.
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has released a final guidance document entitled, “Consideration of Uncertainty in Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approvals, De Novo Classifications, and Humanitarian Device Exemptions.” This document provides information on how the FDA evaluates uncertainty and the appropriate extent of uncertainty in the benefit-risk determination for medical devices that are subject to premarket approval (PMA).
Continue reading “FDA’s Final Guidance: “Consideration of Uncertainty in Making Benefit-Risk Determinations in Medical Device Premarket Approvals, De Novo Classifications, and Humanitarian Device Exemptions””
An unusual pet food case filed this summer in the District Court of Colorado has a pet food manufacturer as the plaintiff rather than a defendant. Lystn, LLC v. FDA, No. 1:19CV01943 (D. Colo. July 5, 2019).
There have been numerous reports of lawsuits involving allegedly contaminated pet food filed against pet food manufacturers or distributors by pet owners claiming that they were deceived by pet food labels and suffered harm either as a result of paying a premium for the food or because their pets were sickened by the food. In contrast, on July 5, 2019, a raw pet food company, Lystn, LLC, brought a civil action against the FDA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint challenges the FDA’s ability to enforce what Lystn characterizes as “a nationwide zero-tolerance standard for Salmonella presence in pet food that is unsupported by science and ultra vires of powers properly delegated to it by Congress.”
On July 9, 2019, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) released the final guidance document “Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies: Modifications and Revisions Guidance for Industry,” which provides information regarding “changes to approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS),” the application process for proposed changes to REMS, and “how the FDA will process submissions.”
Not every pharmaceutical product approved by the FDA requires a REMS. “A REMS is a required risk management plan that uses tools beyond the prescribing information (the package insert) to ensure that the benefits of certain drugs outweigh their risks.” Following a REMS submission, an application holder might be inclined to submit proposed changes, or the FDA might require the submission of proposed changes. Application holders who find themselves in either position may turn to this final guidance document for direction.