FDA Looking at Ways to Improve Medical Device Safety

Last week, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials held what the New York Times called a “rare” meeting to discuss the many controversies surrounding the agency's device safety record; medical attorneys think the meeting is past due.

The director of the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation, Dr. Donna-Bea Tillman, called for an “all hands meeting,” to include all scientists in the device evaluation section. Shockingly, a meeting like this has not been held at the FDA in years. Then again, when you consider the agency's medical device safety record, it really is not very surprising.

FDAThe meeting is the most recent in a series of developments surrounding the FDA's record in approving devices. At least 9 scientists this year wrote to Principal Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, alleging that approval procedures in the device section were being "severely distorted." The letter also alleged that scientists at the agency, who were raising their voice against such unethical practices, were facing retaliation by FDA higher-ups. The matter has been serious enough to warrant a Congressional investigation. Soon, the Institute of Medicine could also begin probing these serious concerns about the device section.

Things seem to be heating up at the medical device section of the FDA. Two things are apparent at this point:

  • There are serious failures in the medical device division of the FDA.
  • These problems are not going to be solved by mere patch-up work.  Rather, the section needs a complete overhaul to root out unethical practices, and make approval processes corruption-proof.

Any changes that come about at the medical device division cannot be a day too soon.

Defective Medical Devices

It is the FDA's responsibility to protect American consumers from dangerous medical devices. If they fall down on the job and let corrupt individuals get in the way of important safety evaluations, we are all at risk.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective medical device, a medical injury attorney can help you recover physically, emotionally, and financially.

Contact a medical injury lawyer, at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation and to find the answers to any questions you might have.

FDA Asks Pharmaceutical Companies to Include Drug Injury Risk Information in Google Ads

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent letters to major pharmaceutical companies, warning them that their Google search ads will be removed unless they start including information about the risks of the drugs.

Most of the top pharmaceutical companies received the letter, which included two pieces of information the agency expects pharmaceutical search ads to have:

  • The full name of the drug
  • Risk factors associated with the drug

Until now, pharmaceutical marketing companies followed the “One Click" rule. As long as all risk information was provided on the page users were directed to after clicking the ad once, risk information was considered sufficient. Now, the agency is demanding that ads include the risks and explains that, laws for print or television marketing are the same for internet marketing. Many pharmaceutical companies have complied, but argue that the FDA should look further into internet advertising and understand that including the risks of a drug is, not only impossible considering Google's guidelines, but also more confusing for consumers. The FDA set April 9th as the deadline for companies to change their ads.

Medical Injury AttorneyMedical injury lawyers support the FDA's decision to regulate pharmaceutical companies' internet advertising. After all, if a company has is able to describe a product in glowing terms within the Google character limit, it should have no problem including risk information within the character limit as well. However, what we would like is for Google, the FDA, and pharmaceutical companies to come up with ways in which consumers would have all pertinent information about the drug, including risks, when a search ad catches their attention. Currently, the FDA’s new system has online pharmacies showing up as the top listings in text ad results; this is not very helpful for consumers.

This is one more example of good intentions, but flawed methods. The FDA needs to put a little more effort into defining the rules clearly, and pharmaceutical companies must work with the agency to ensure that customers have all risk information at a glance. This is all new territory for the agency. Clear guidelines will give companies no excuse for disobeying the rules and will provide consumers with all the information they need.

Pharmaceutical Attorney

Pharmaceutical companies are required to disclose the risks of their products. Failure to do so can result in seriously injured consumers and even death. Luckily, the FDA is doing what they think is best to protect American consumers, lets just hope they are not confusing the situation even more.

If you or a loved one has been injured by a defective pharmaceutical drug an experienced medical injury lawyer can help you find the answers and resources you need to recover. For a free evaluation of your case, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP.

FDA Issues Class-I Recall of Medtronic Brain Catheters

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a Class I recall of a brain catheter manufactured by Medtronic Inc. due to failures in the device that may result in serious medical injuries.

In February, Medtronic recalled the BioGlide Ventricular Snap Shunt Catheters that are used to drain excess brain fluid into another part of the body. The catheter is often used in the treatment of hydrocephalus, a condition in which excessive fluid forms in the brain. The company received reports that the catheters are prone to disconnecting. According to Medtronic, such failures could cause:

  • Vomiting
  • Nausea
  • Fatigue
  • Headache
  • Seizures
  • Visual problems

Medical Injury AttorneyAlthough the company says it has not received reports of death or serious injuries connected to the use of the catheters, the FDA has classified the recall a Class I. Generally, such a recall is issued when there is “a reasonable probability” that the use of a product can result in serious injuries or death. 3,000 catheters, distributed between 2000 & 2009 are affected by the recall.

The company has received nine reports of the catheter disconnecting. In these instances, the catheters disconnected from the snap base assembly, resulting in the need for emergency revision surgery.

The recall involves the following models of the catheter:

  • Inner Vision Snap Shunt Ventricular Catheter BioGlide (R: 25.44, 1.15, 4.73%) Catalog Number 27782
  • Snap Shunt Ventricular BioGlide(R: 25.44, 1.15,  4.73%) Catalog Number 27802
  • Snap Shunt Ventricular Catheter BioGlide (R: 25.44, 1.15, 4.73%) Catalog Number 27708

Patents who have questions have been asked to contact their doctors or the company.

Defective Medical Devices Can Cause Serious Injuries

By the time a medical device is found to have a serious defect, it is often too late for patients who have been injured, sometimes fatally, by their use. It is the job of the FDA and medical device companies to keep patients informed and to protect consumers from dangerous medical products. 

If you or a loved one has been injured by the use of a defective medical device, a medical injury lawyer can help you recover compensation for your injuries. Contact an experienced medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

Boston Scientific Issues Warning About Malfunctioning Defibrillators

Boston Scientific Corp. recently announced, a malfunctioning wire in Cognis and Teligen defibrillators may result in an abnormal or unnecessary shock, causing serious medical injuries to patients.

Defective Medical DevicesBoston Scientific introduced the defibrillators last year in an attempt to grab market share from other device makers. The company expected sales from the two defibrillators to fast track growth this year. The safety warning, sent to cardiologists, seems to have put a halt on the company's plans, in addition to causing concern to thousands of patients who are implanted with the Cognis and Teligen defibrillators. The company says about 34,000 units have been sold since their introduction. The problem, however, is restricted to about 8,000 of these devices that come with respiratory sensors. The wires that connect the defibrillator to the heart are prone to malfunction which can result in one of two situations:

  • The device may fail to operate properly, resulting in failure to emit a lifesaving electrical jolt to the heart when an abnormal cardiac rhythm is detected.
  • The device may deliver an unnecessary electrical shock to the heart, resulting in severe pain and cardiac injuries.  

Wire problems with defibrillators tend to increase as the device gets older. The Cognis and Teligen defibrillators however are a relatively new entrant into the $11 billion defibrillator market. This is why the announcement, which warns of the device's susceptibility to early malfunction, surprised so many defibrillator experts. If these warnings seem all too familiar, it is because medical injury lawyers and patients who suffer from cardiac arrhythmia remember the thousands of injuries and 13 deaths caused by Medtronic’s malfunctioning defibrillators in 2007.

Defective Defibrillators

Considering the number of problems linked to these devices, it is fair to assume that there could potentially be malfunctions in defibrillators manufactured by other companies also. Cardiac defibrillator devices have been a blessing for thousands of patients who suffer from heart problems. However, manufacturing companies have been reluctant to inform the public about problems with the devices. To make matters worse, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which is supposed to screen devices thoroughly before approving them for marketing, has been slow to warn patients.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective defibrillator or other medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

Possible FDA Split Could Mean Safer Drugs, Fewer Medical Injuries

Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have long believed that the agency should be split into two parts to ensure adequate safety processes for drug approvals and, in turn, fewer medical injuries. If President Obama’s recent actions are any indication of whats to come, these critics will soon have their wish.

Last month, President Obama appointed two health experts to top positions at the FDA. Former New York City health commissioner, Margaret Hamper, is the President's choice for the agency's commissioner; while pediatrician and child safety expert, Joshua Sharfstein, is the President's choice for deputy commissioner. Experts believe that the President's choice of two experts is an indication that he is in favor of splitting the FDA into two separate units.

Medical Injury AttorneyFDA critics have long argued that the agency is overworked and simply unable to monitor the safety of the vast amounts of pharmaceutical drugs, medical products, and medical devices that come through its doors. The agency suffers from under staffing and a shortage of resources necessary to ensure drug safety. FDA officials, themselves, admit that the agency is unable to meet the changing demands of a globalized world, where pharmaceutical drugs are frequently sourced from foreign plants. In 2005, the FDA approved close to 3,200 applications for marketing of new medical devices. Yet, the agency has only a fraction of the scientist and researchers necessary to process so many applications. Because of this the FDA often has no other option, but to rely on the device makers themselves to disclose the risks of their products.

FDA Division Supporters

The drug industry has been quietly supporting a possible division of the agency, because it could result in faster approvals of pharmaceutical drugs. The FDA experiences frequent delays in its approval and review processes for pharmaceutical drugs due to its shortage of staff. However, medical injury lawyers would welcome an FDA split due to the possibility of more stringent monitoring of review processes and, therefore, enhanced safety of drugs and devices approved for promotion.  

Medical Injury AttorneyIn recent years the FDA has battled several food safety crises. Every time there is a contaminated batch of peanut butter or pistachios, the agency is forced to turn its attention to food safety. It has become increasingly clear that we cannot continue to expect the agency, responsible for making sure tomatoes and peppers are free of pathogens, to also be responsible for monitoring the safety of bone graft products, implantable cardioverter defibrillators and drug eluting stents.

If you've been injured through use of a defective drug, medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation.

AstraZeneca Accused of Suppressing Unfavorable Seroquel Studies, Faces Medical Injury Lawsuits

According to many, recently filed medical injury lawsuits, AstraZeneca neglected to release findings of a study that linked its anti-psychotic drug Seroquel to diabetes and sudden weight gain.

The results of the study, named Study 15, were available in 1997, but company executives conveniently chose to file away the results rather than notifying doctors. The company used other studies that painted a more favorable picture of the drug to promote it. Medical Injury LawsuitLater that year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Seroquel. Since then, Seroquel has become one of the company's best selling drugs with billions of dollars in sales, including a whopping $12 billion in the last three years. Meanwhile, thousands of patients who were prescribed Seroquel developed diabetes and suffered extreme weight gain.

More than 9000 patients have developed hyperglycemia, diabetes, and weight gain after using the drug and have filed medical injury lawsuits against the company. Plaintiffs called for the unsealing of confidential company documents that prove the company was aware of the link between the use of Seroquel and diabetes and weight gain. As the contents of these documents are revealed, it is  apparent that, not only was the company aware of Seroquel's potential side effects, but the company also ordered its sales representatives in the U.S. to tell doctors that the drug did not cause diabetes. This order was mandated after one of AstraZeneca's own physicians told a client such a link was indeed possible.

The release of the "hidden" documents has generated a long list of questions about the extent of deceit by the company. The documents reveal that a University of Minnesota psychiatrist, Dr. S. Charles Schulz, came to "questionable" findings regarding the safety of the drug, and still announced that it was "significantly superior" to the then, industry-leading Haldol. In his research, Dr. Schulz used much of the same data that, back in 2000, revealed Seroquel was no more effective than other cheaper alternatives. After using the same data, however, he managed to come to the conclusion that the drug was more effective.

If this all sounds sickeningly familiar, you may have heard about the recent Forest Laboratories Inc. scandal, in which federal prosecutors charged Forest Laboratories Inc. with suppressing studies that showed not-too-favorable results of its Lexapro medication for use in teenagers. 

Medical Injury Lawyers

These all-too-frequent scandals raise questions about how drug companies are managing to spin research to present a favorable picture of their otherwise, questionable drugs. This is an issue the FDA has been battling a lot in recent years, as lawmakers, patients' safety advocates and medical injury lawyers around the country demand to know why companies are allowed to pass off results of company-sponsored studies as proof of their product's safety.

If you've been injured by use of a defective drug, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

Forest Laboratories Inc. Accused of Illegal Marketing of Antidepressants

As the Justice Department charged Forest Laboratories Inc. in February with illegal marketing of its antidepressants Celexa and Lexapro, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the use of Lexapro for use in children.

Forest Laboratories Inc. marketed the drugs for use in children and adolescents even though it had no FDA approval for such use. The civil complaint filed against the company alleges that:

  • Executives at Forest promoted favorable results from one clinical trial to purport that the drugs were effective in children. The trial, conveniently enough, was financed by the company. Another study, that did not result in such favorable findings, was concealed and the company failed to share the results of that study.
  • The company awarded pediatricians who prescribed the drugs. There were ski vacations, gift certificates, fishing trips, and spa visits dangled before doctors to coax them into prescribing Celexa and Lexapro.
  • Forest conducted trials that were simply marketing campaigns in the guise of studies. Doctors are not prohibited from prescribing drugs for unapproved uses; drug makers, however, are not allowed to promote off label or unapproved uses of drugs. In recent weeks, Eli Lilly settled an off label use promotion suit and Medtronic had a medical injury lawsuit filed against them for off label promotion of its Infuse bone growth product.

Medical Injury AttorneysThe allegations that Forest Laboratories Inc. concealed studies showing unfavorable results for Lexapro and Celexa seem to have received no attention by the FDA. On March 20th, the agency approved the use of Lexapro for use in adolescents. Lexapro is only the second antidepressant approved for use in younger patients.

Medical Injury Attorneys

Often, pharmaceutical companies indulge in unethical and illegal marketing of products that have not been approved for certain uses. Forest Laboratories' illegal marketing of Lexapro and Celexa for use in younger patients even before they were approved for such use, could have placed children and adolescents at risk of antidepressant abuse. Antidepressant medications, when not used as they are prescribed, can cause suicidal fantasies or worsen symptoms of depression. Unfortunately, we often see pharmaceutical companies ignoring health risks posed by unapproved uses of drugs to increase profits without thought of the risks of medical injuries.

Patients injured by unapproved use of a drug can consult a medical injury lawyer to file a lawsuit against the company, if it was engaged in promoting such off label use.

If you or a loved one has been injured by the use of Celexa or Lexapro, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP to learn about your options for compensation.

Georgia Set to Limit Liability for Pharmaceutical Drug and Medical Device Companies

Georgia has introduced legislation aimed at protecting manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices from injury liability in a misplaced effort to attract these companies to the state.  If it becomes a law, the bill may have dangerous implications for Georgia residents who could have their options for liability claims severely limited.

Senate Bill 101 was introduced last week by Senator Bill Cowsert (R- Athens). The bill, which has the approval of Governor Sonny Perdue, aims to amend existing liability codes. Promoters are hoping Defective Medical Products to pass it before Atlanta becomes the venue for the world's largest biotechnology conference in May. Earlier this year, Governor Perdue unveiled the legislation at a meeting of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, outlining his intention of making it harder for victims to pursue civil liability claims against pharmaceutical companies. Basically, the bill grants immunity to drug and medical device manufacturers from any medical injury lawsuits if the drug or device has already been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It is no secret that the legislation is aimed at making the state's investment climate attractive to pharmaceutical companies who may consider setting up business there. As a spokesman for the governor confirms, the state wishes to pursue these companies aggressively to set up base in Georgia, and so, has dangled the civil liability immunity carrot in front of them.

Not surprisingly, civil justice proponents, patients' rights advocates and medical injury lawyers have been vocal in opposing any bill that grants immunity to pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers based purely on FDA approval of drugs or devices. As we have seen in recent years, many drugs and devices have been hastily pulled off the market after the dangers of using them came to light. All of these products had FDA approval. There are critics both within the FDA and outside the organization who claim its inspection standards and oversight procedures are far from adequate. In a scenario like this, passing legislation that relies purely on FDA approval to decide the validity of medical injury lawsuits is extremely harsh and unfair to patients. Beside, dangling the immunity carrot in front of pharmaceutical companies may actually prove counterproductive. The only other state that grants immunity to these companies is Michigan, which, contrary to being flooded with investment after the immunity law was passed, has actually found thousands of pharmaceutical jobs leaving the state.

Medical Injury Lawyers

Any time a state attempts to interfere with patients' rights to hold companies responsible for their injuries is a bad sign for civil justice in the country. Granting these companies immunity at the cost of patients' rights to protect themselves is a serious mistake, and one we hope Georgia won't make.

If you have been injured by the use of a defective pharmaceutical drug or medical device, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.