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 To Ask Medical Device Makers to Prove Safety

In a step long awaited by medical injury lawyers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced it will ask makers of external defibrillators, pacemakers, and other medical devices to prove the safety and effectiveness of their products.

These devices, among others, were allowed into the market with very little testing in 1976, before the medical device law was passed. After the law was enacted, the FDA was supposed to determine which of the older devices needed retesting before the agency could give approval for new versions. The agency, however, failed to do so and, for years since, has continued to approve such devices without requiring rigorous safety testing. The agency recently began a review of two of its older device categories and will be sending notices to the makers of at least 25 other device types, asking them to submit product safety information to the agency within 120 days.

Medical Injury AttorneyThe device categories include several high risk devices like external defibrillators, pacemaker parts, and others that have been in the news for various medical injury lawsuits. With this, the theory that the FDA has stringent monitoring processes and should, therefore, be the sole arbiter of a device's safety, has been debunked.

Meanwhile, patients across the country who have been implanted with Medtronic's Sprint Fidelis Defibrillator leads, just one example of the FDA's failure to monitor the safety of devices, are living in anxiety that their devices could malfunction, leading to severe injuries. For these patients, every day that goes by could mean further deterioration of the lead that connects the defibrillator to the heart, and even more anxiety. The extraction process is high risk and not recommended; these patients are caught between a rock and a hard place. They cannot undergo surgery because it is risky, and they cannot sue the company because of the Riegel vs. Medtronic Supreme Court ruling, in which the court held that a device maker could not be sued for injuries caused by an FDA-approved medical device.

The FDA and Defective Medical Devices

For those of use who have never fallen for the theory that the FDA's "stringent" review processes can be relied on, and that device makers, therefore, deserve immunity from lawsuits relating to agency-approved devices, this move by the FDA is a welcome first step. However, thousands of patients who have been injured by the use of these minimally tested devices continue their wait to seek justice for their injuries.  

The medical injury attorneys at Arnold & Itkin LLP have extensive experience representing victims of injuries. If you have been injured by the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury attorney at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your case.

 

 

 

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.

FDA Issues Class I Recall for Baxter Colleague Infusion Pumps

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a Class I recall for Baxter International's Colleague infusion pumps, but a prominent consumer advocacy group is criticizing the agency for its delay in issuing the recall.

The recall was made concerning Single and Triple Channel Volumetric Infusion Pumps, which are used to deliver fluids and drugs to patients. There is a malfunction in the battery and software of the device that can cause an interruption in the infusion. This defect is serious enough to cause injury or death, therefore, the recall assigned is a Class I.

Medical Injury AttorneyIn January, Baxter sent a letter to customers informing them of the failures in the pumps. The warning included an alert that the pump could overheat, resulting in fire and smoke if not properly cleaned. The letter also underscored the importance of proper battery care, pointing out that failure to do so could cause the device to malfunction.

Baxter issued a press release announcing the recall on March 11th; the FDA posted a recall notice on its website the same day, a full seven weeks after Baxter sent the letter to customers. The FDA has come under fire by Public Citizen for its delay in issuing the recall of the drug pump. The criticism is not new – medical injury lawyers have insisted that the FDA issue recall notices quickly and on its own, rather than waiting for companies to act first.

Colleague infusion pumps have been linked to safety issues for years. The FDA, in fact, has issued at least 7 Class I recalls for the pumps. The company stopped sales of the pump in the U.S. in 2005, but at least 200,000 of the pumps are currently in use in hospitals and nursing homes across the country. The malfunctioning, which can cause the pumps to stop pumping and overheat, has been blamed for at least 19 deaths. Sidney Wolfe, the director of the Health Research Group of Public Citizen has demanded that all existing Colleague Infusion pumps be removed from the facilities that continue to use them to deliver fluids and medication to patients. Baxter, however, insists that a full withdrawal, including removal of pumps currently in use, would lead to a shortage in the market.

Delayed Recalls Increase Risk of Medical Injuries

Thousands of patients in hospitals and nursing homes around the country are at risk due to defective medical devices like Colleague Infusion pumps that they depend on to receive lifesaving drugs and fluids. It is outrageous that these pumps continue to be used, even after the manufacturer admitted the device has serious flaws.

If you've suffered injuries due to the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free evaluation of your claim.

Medical Device Maker Lobbied for FDA Approval

Supporters of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that granted device makers immunity from medical injury lawsuits brought on by FDA approved devices, should rethink their position. According to the Wall Street Journal, a knee device maker engaged in unethical lobbying to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for its new device.

The approval for Menaflex implants, which are used to help knee injury patients, was given overriding objections by FDA scientists. According to FDA correspondents, several senior staff members of the agency complained that ReGen Biologics Inc., the company that manufactures Menaflex, pressured the agency to approve the device. Lawmakers have since gotten involved in the controversy with Senator Chuck Grassley sending letters to the agency as well as the device maker, calling for more information about interactions between the two. According to Senator Grassley, his investigation is based on emails that suggest the agency was overenthusiastic in its readiness to ‘’accommodate the company.’’ Menaflex received approval under the agency's fast track rules, in which clinical trials are not necessary.

Medical Injury LawyerIt is not only ReGen Biologics Inc. and the safety, or lack of it, of Menaflex in question here. At the crux of the matter are the reliability and integrity of FDA approval processes. Email correspondence between staff members at the agency indicate that they removed certain lines from emails that could indicate ‘’special treatment for the device maker.’’ FDA critics are concerned about what they call the agency’s tendency to bow to device companies. The fast track process, in particular, has come under intense scrutiny. The process allows scientists to bypass clinical trials only when reviewing devices similar to existing ones. There is no explanation forthcoming about why Menaflex was approved under the fast track process considering it is the only device of its kind in the market. With the FDA behaving more like a corrupt government than the country's premier drug safety agency, it is fair to assume that medical injury lawyers will be kept busy for a while.

Defective Medical Device Lawsuits

Medical devices that are rushed through approval processes or approved through lobbying efforts may come with risks that can pose potential dangers to patients. These devices may not have had stringent review guidelines applied to them, which means their safety may not be thoroughly verified.

If you've been injured by the use of a defective medical device, and want to know if you are eligible for compensation, contact an experienced medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP.

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.

Law Makers Move to Return Patients' Right to File Medical Device Injury Lawsuits

In recent weeks, patients injured by Medtronic defibrillators have watched in pain as judges around the country dismissed their medical injury lawsuits. Law makers' recent plans to reintroduce patients' rights, give them reason to cheer.

Democratic lawmakers are working on plans to reintroduce legislation that would return patients' rights to sue medical device companies for their injuries. In February 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that patients injured by the use of defective medical devices, like Medtronic defibrillators, could not file a lawsuit against the company if the device had received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since then, judges around the country have cited the Supreme Court decision numerous times, using it as an excuse for throwing out hundreds of lawsuits including several against Medtronic. Medical Injury LawyerOn February 17th, a judge in Wisconsin dismissed a lawsuit filed by a 63-year-old man who needed surgery to remove a Medtronic device after the company warned that the batteries may suffer from a sudden depletion of power causing it to malfunction. Earlier this year, a judge in Minnesota dismissed hundreds of Medtronic injury lawsuits brought by injured patients.

With the new administration, however, it seems like patients may have their right to sue companies like Medtronic returned to them. House democrats, Henry A. Waxman of California, who also serves as the chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, and Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, plan to introduce legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court ruling. Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont sponsored a similar bill last year which could be reintroduced later this year.

At the crux of the Supreme Court decision last year was the belief that the FDA, as the country's chief drug and medical device safety agency, could be trusted to approve a product only after ensuring it was entirely safe to use. Since then, we have seen evidence of the agency's ineptitude, not only in the number of defective drugs that seem to enter the market like contaminated Heparin and Vioxx, but also through the whistle blowing efforts of its own staff who allege that the agency's approval processes are questionable. In this situation, where companies attempt to push their products through approval processes as quickly as possible and the FDA continues to lurch from one food and drug safety scandal to another, the only losers are patients who end up with no recourse to civil justice after they suffer injuries. Several lawmakers, medical injury lawyers, and patient advocates have strongly voiced their opposition to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling. With a new administration in power, however, it seems like change is finally coming to American civil justice.

Medical Injury Lawsuits

Going up against big medical device manufacturers like Medtronic can be intimidating. In conjunction with laws prohibiting your right to justice, however, it can seem impossible. Our team of medical injury attorneys can help you find the resources you need in such a situation.

If you have been injured by the use of a defective medical device, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP to learn how you can begin to recover compensation for your suffering.

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.

FDA Guidelines on Off-Label Drug Use May Lead to Injuries

As the Bush administration prepared to vacate office, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued new guidelines that ease restrictions on promotion of off-label drug use by pharmaceutical companies. The rule has been severely criticized because it may lead to more dangers when pharmaceutical drugs are used in ways not approved by the FDA.

It is illegal for pharmaceutical companies to promote off-label use of their drugs, although physicians are allowed to prescribe drugs for purposes not approved by the FDA. Doctors are allowed and often do rely on published medical research to prescribe drugs for unapproved uses to their patients. In its new rule, the FDA allows pharmaceutical companies to cite medical journal research supporting off-label uses of a drug. The biggest problem with relying on medical journal articles is that such research does not go through a strict screening process. It is hardly meant to be used as a substitute for the rigorous approval procedures conducted by the FDA.  Plus, there is also the risk that pharmaceutical companies may pay medical researchers and scientists for articles that recommend promotion of the drug for off-label use, which clearly would not be genuine, in-depth research articles.Pharmaceutical Drugs

The new guideline has been criticized from both within and outside the Bush administration. The Department of Veterans Affairs, patient advocacy groups, state prosecutors and medical injury lawyers around the country stand adamant that the new guidelines will weaken an already unstable FDA and expose patients to the omnipresent dangers of off-label drug use.

Off-label drug use continues to be a major danger to patients at risk of side effects from such drugs. Recently, Eli Lilly and Company agreed to a mammoth settlement over civil and criminal lawsuits arising from off-label drug use promotion. Also, Medtronic currently faces a lawsuit arising from the same unethical practices related to its Infuse Bone Graft. The threat of massive civil and criminal liability is the only thing preventing mass off-label promotion by drug manufacturers.  In the absence of rules completely prohibiting such promotion, drug manufacturers will have the freedom to place patients at risk in order to multiply their profits.

Promotion of off-label drug use by pharmaceutical companies can expose patients to unknown side effects simply because off-label uses are not researched as extensively as approved uses and, therefore, have little research to provide help in the case of adverse effects. In such cases, patients who have been injured can file a medical injury lawsuit against the company with the help of a medical injury lawyer.

If you have been injured by the use of a defective pharmaceutical drug, contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

 
 
 

 

 
 

Defective Pharmaceuticals Could cause Terrorism Risk

If the prospect of contaminated Heparin and injuries from Avandia were not disturbing enough, an eminent cardiologist has now warned of the danger of a biological threat if the FDA does not get its act together, and fast.

Dr. Steven Nissen, a prominent Cleveland Clinic cardiologist and medical researcher, was one of the first to bring the risk of Avandia injuries caused by Glaxo's anti-diabetes drug into the spotlight. This man has a reputation for being straight forward and honest and has never shied away from calling out pharmaceutical companies and the FDA for their negligence.  He has also been named a possible contender for FDA chief.  Big pharmaceutical companies have always been wary of his announcements and the FDA has frequently been the target of Dr. Nissen's criticism. 

So, when Dr. Nissen raises concerns that terrorist organizations, like Al-Qaeda, could use the FDA's scant oversight of foreign pharmaceutical plants to mount a biological attack on the U.S., we are inclined to pay attention. Dr. Nissen insists that he is not trying to stir up paranoia. Recent instances of the FDA’s somnambular conduct of its drug safety processes, especially at foreign plants, do raise concerns that the facilities could be used by those who seek to harm Americans. China, for instance, is growing to be a significant source of drugs manufactured for Americans. Last year's heparin scandal was traced to batches of contaminated Heparin injections manufactured in China. The Heparin contamination, it is believed, came from adding a synthetic, cheaper compound in place of the original ingredient in a possible effort to cut costs. Since then, we have found that the FDA has not conducted a single inspection of the Chinese plant since it received approval several years ago. The FDA now has an inspection office in China to handle inspections of food and drug plants supplying the U.S. It seems like a reassuring first step, until you realize that the total staff strength at the Chinese FDA office is 8.

The FDA admitted that it has been unable to adapt to growing changes brought about by globalization. In a scenario where a growing number of drugs are sourced from Chinese plants, there may be reason to worry about whether a lack of FDA inspections, combined with poor regulatory standards in China could lead to the first major biological terrorist attack on the U.S. Of course, the chances of terrorists infiltrating a Chinese pharmaceutical plant and contaminating drugs meant for American consumers may seem far fetched now, but we never imagined that a group of zealots would drive aircrafts into the heart of New York City either. 

Medical Injury Lawyers

The FDA's poor oversight of drug makers and poor regulatory practices, combined with pharmaceutical companies' negligence, have time and again placed American consumers at risk of tainted or defective pharmaceutical drugs. If you have been injured as a result of using a dangerous drug or defective medical device, you will need the help of a medical injury lawyer to recover the compensation you deserve.

To get the help you need contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

Congress Report Slams Shoddy FDA Approval of Medical Drugs and Devices

Under scrutiny for its failure to prevent unsafe pharmaceutical and medical devices from entering the American market, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been criticized by a government body in a report filed this week.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) expressed doubts that Americans can expect adequate protection “from unsafe and ineffective medical products” from the FDA.  The GAO submitted its list of federal government agencies that are in need of improvement and the FDA made the list, which also includes the Treasury Department and Medicare. According to the report, FDA efforts to ensure the safety of the American consumer have been deterred not only by increasing globalization that has led to a large number of drugs and devices being made in overseas plants, but also because newer and more complex devices are being developed. Already bogged down by a lack of resources to handle such complex and technologically advanced products, the FDA also lacks access to databases that allow thorough and regular inspections of all plants, including the many overseas.  Other groups have also criticized the FDA's record in keeping dangerous drugs and devices out of the American market. The FDA acknowledges that there are holes in the system that need to be plugged if the agency is to be able to carry on its task of protecting American consumers.

Meanwhile, with a new administration in power there are signs that a beefing up of FDA may be in the works. According to another report, House Energy and Commerce Democrats are planning to introduce new laws that give the country's premier drug safety agency greater powers to oversee pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices. Disapproval for the FDA's conduct has spilled over into criticism for just about anything the beleaguered agency does. Earlier in January, a slideshow that attempted to boost morale by comparing the FDA chief Janet Woodcock to Gandhi had lawmakers furious about the $1.5 million contract awarded to the consultant responsible for the creation of the slide show. Another point of criticism was that the slideshow contract was handed to a firm known for its contact with pharmaceutical companies. The FDA has, in recent years, also come under fire for its links to the pharmaceutical industry.

The agency's failure to guarantee the quality of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices introduced into the market has left dozens of people dead and hundreds injured in recent pharmaceutical scandals. Some of these include Avandia heart injuries, contaminated Heparin and Paxil side effects.  

Medical Injury Lawyer

If you have been injured by the use of a defective pharmaceutical drug or medical device, you will need the representation of an expert medical injury lawyer to recover compensation. 

Contact a medical injury lawyer at Arnold & Itkin LLP for a free consultation.

 

 

Eli Lilly Agrees to Settlement in Zyprexa Case

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Company has agreed to a $1.42 billion settlement in a civil and criminal suit involving injuries resulting from the company's promotion of off-label use of its anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa. This settlement includes a $30 million award to Texas.

The U.S. Department of Justice has been investigating the manner in which Eli Lilly & Company engaged in improper marketing of Zyprexa for uses not approved by the FDA. Zyprexa is an anti-psychotic drug approved for treatment of patients with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. However, the company, beginning in 1999, commenced promotion of Zyprexa use for patients suffering from dementia, depression and other conditions. Eli Lilly representatives were sent to nursing homes to market the drug for elderly residents. The FDA does not prohibit doctors from prescribing medicines for purposes other than those approved, but pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to promote such off-label use of a drug. Eli Lilly was, therefore, acting in blatant violation of FDA regulations by promoting the off-label use of Zyprexa.

Reports of injury, including infections and heart attacks, began to surface, but the company chose to overlook them and continue to promote Zyprexa for use in elderly dementia patients. In 2006, the FDA asked Eli Lilly to include strong warning labels on Zyprexa cautioning patients of the increased risk when used by the elderly. The company has since had close to 32,000 medical injury lawsuits failed against them and has been forced to pay approximately $1.2 billion in settlements.

Eli Lilly’s violation of FDA rules and complete disregard for patient safety has shocked patients' safety advocates, concerned citizens and medical injury lawyers since the scandal first made headlines. Unfortunately, greed often takes precedence over ethical promotion practices at many of the country's most reputed pharmaceutical companies. When the FDA gives approval to a particular drug, it does so to reassure patients that they can feel safe using the drug for a specified condition. When companies like Eli Lilly greedily promote their products for unapproved purposes, they place consumers at risk for serious injury and even death.

Pursuing Pharmaceutical Drug Injury Cases

Pursuing claims against a major pharmaceutical company can be a long, complex procedure, involving expert witnesses and medical researchers, who can help build a winning case. At Arnold & Itkin LLP, we have pursued injury lawsuits against some of the country's biggest companies to recover compensation for our clients. 

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

 

Doctor who injected fake Botox goes to prison

A Houston physician who committed medical malpractice and was convicted last year of injecting her patients with a Botox substitute has started serving her two-year federal sentence. Although she said the fake injections were a "mistake", Dr. Gayle Rothenberg was found guilty of conspiracy, nine counts of mail fraud, misbranding a drug for sale, and lying to federal agents. The doctor and her husband, lawyer Saul Gower, were accused of substituting the cheaper Botulinum Toxin Type A for the FDA-approved product Botox.  The Type A product is similar but isn't approved by the FDA for human use.

The conviction is just another among several obtained as a result of an ongoing investigation by the FDA's Office of Criminal Investigation. "Someone who abuses a position of trust for financial gain and subjects patients to unknown safety risks from unapproved medications will be held accountable," says Kim A. Rice, FDA Special Agent in Charge of OCI's Metro Washington Field Office. "FDA will aggressively pursue those who willfully circumvent laws that are in place to protect the consuming public."

If you have been administered an unapproved substitute for Botox or any other FDA-approved product, you may be entitled to claim compensation for medical malpractice. If you have questions, contact a medical malpractice lawyer to learn more about your options.

Read more about how the FDA is cracking down on Botox scammers and about the FDA's investigation of Illegal Botox-substitution scammers.

 

 

 

FDA warns of fire, explosion, toxic exposure risk with Battery Operated Lavage System (BOLS)

Today the FDA issued a safety alert to notify healthcare professionals about the potential for sparks, fires, toxic fumes, and explosions when disposable battery operated lavage systems’ (BOLS) cables are cut. BOLS are used in the OR, ER, burn units, and nursing units. The cutting of the battery pack's cable can lead to a short circuit, causing the batteries to discharge rapidly, producing intense heat and flammable gases with a resulting explosion that expels flammable gases and toxic chemicals endangering both patients and staff.

Read the complete MedWatch 2008 Safety summary, including a link to the Medical Device Safety alert at FDA.gov.

Diabetes drug Byetta linked to injuries and death

Deaths have been reported in connection with the widely used diabetes drug, Byetta (exenatide), marketed by Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Eli Lilly & Co.  An alert from the FDA said they have received reports of 6 cases of hemorrhagic or necrotizing pancreatitis in patients taking Byetta.  Byetta is a medicine given by subcutaneous injection to help treat adults with type 2 diabetes. Of the 6 cases of hemorrhagic or necrotizing pancreatitis, all patients required hospitalization, two patients died and four patients were recovering at the time of reporting.  Byetta was discontinued in all 6 cases. Federal regulators are working on a stronger label fo the drug.

If you or a loved one have been seriously injured by a defective pharmaceutical drug like Byetta, you may be entitled to compensation from those responsible for your injury. Contact the medical injury lawyers at the Arnold & Itkin LLP law firm in Houston, Texas to learn more about your options.

Contaminated Heparin connected with potentially fatal side effects

The FDA announced that Baxter International's popular blood thinning drug Heparin was contaminated with oversulfated chondroitin sulfate.  Hundreds of adverse reactions have been reported in connection with the contaminated Heparin products. At least 19 people have died as a result.

Adverse reactions include refractory hypotension leading to organ damage, organ failure, shock, and death. Baxter began recalling Heparin products in January 2008 and by February 2008 had expanded the recall to include most Heparin products.

More information on the Heparin recall, including options for persons injured by the contaminated drug can be found on our Medical Injury Lawyer website.

Study links drug eluting stents (DES) to fatal complications

Findings of a study published in November 2006 by The American Journal of Medicine indicate that patients with drug eluting stents were 4 or 5 times more likely to suffer from stent thrombosis, which can lead to heart attack or death.

On November 14, 2006, a statement by the FDA confirmed that it was aware of recent data suggesting a significant increase in the rate of death and myocardial infarction (heart attack) possibly due to stent thrombosis (a blood clot in the stent) in patients treated with drug eluting stents.

More information on the risks of injury from drug eluting stents and options for persons injured by drug eluting stents can be found at the Medical Injury Lawyer website of Houston, Texas based Arnold & Itkin LLP.