Fosamax Ruling: “A Small Win for Defense, A Big Win for Plaintiffs”

SCOTUS Fosamax Ruling (May 20, 2019)

Issue: Whether a state-law failure-to-warn claim is pre-empted when the Food and Drug Administration rejected the drug manufacturer’s proposal to warn about the risk after being provided with the relevant scientific data, or whether such a case must go to a jury for conjecture as to why the FDA rejected the proposed warning

Small Win for Defendants

Defendants Won the argument that a Judge not a jury is the proper authority to decide impossibility preemption arguments arising under the FDCA (Food and Drug Cosmetics Act, Title 21). However, the win on this one issue is a hollow victory for defendants considering the entirety of SCOTUS order and opinion.

SCOTUS ruled that judges not juries are the proper authority to decide the issue however, SCOTUS also placed significant limits on what those lower court judges could and could not consider when ruling on impossibility pre-preemption arguments like those raise by Merck in the Fosamax Case.

JUSTICE THOMAS SUMMARY OF RULING

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring:

I join the Court’s opinion and write separately to explain my understanding of the relevant pre-emption principles and how they apply to this case.

“Because Merck points to no statute, regulation, or other agency action with the force of law that would have prohibited it from complying with its alleged state-law duties, its pre-emption defense should fail as a matter of law”

Big Win for Plaintiffs

SCOTUS ruled that Judges decide however, SCOTUS went much further and defined limits on what facts and information could be considered by lower court judges when making decisions related to impossibly preemption arguments like those raised by Merck in Fosamax.

SCOTUS opinion limits the clear and convincing evidence standards to OFFICAL Acts taken by the FDA which would in general rise1. If the defendant did not go through the CBE process and make the change (the exact warning plaintiffs allege was needed) and the FDA later told them to remove the warning, then FDA OFFICALLY told them to remove the warning, then no pre-emption exists.

1. If the defendant did not go through the CBE process and make the change (the exact warning plaintiffs allege was needed) and the FDA later told them to remove the warning, then FDA OFFICALLY told them to remove the warning, then no pre-emption exists.

2. If the defendant did not ask to make the specific label change (which plaintiffs allege was needed) having provided the FDA all relevant information, and the FDA OFFICIALLY denied the label change, then no pre-emption exists.

Arguments that postulate “hypotheticals” (absent either of the above official actions (facts)) are not to be considered. Communications between the defendant and the FDA, Statements by the FDA that do not constitute an official act under the law, are not to be considered.

The pre-emption question dates back to the original Fosamax case, which was filed by patients who suffered femoral fractures while taking the osteoporosis drug. Merck added language to the product’s label about the risk in 2011, but more than 500 patients claimed that their injuries occurred before then, and Merck should have warned them sooner.

In January 2019, the full Supreme Court heard arguments in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, a case arising out of the In Re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation. Fosamax is a drug used to treat osteoporosis, with a cited adverse event being that it may inhibit bone repair, which could result in an atypical femoral fracture.

The central claim at issue concerns the Fosamax warning label, which initially did not warn of the risk of an atypical femoral fracture. Plaintiffs contend that the label should have included such a warning, while Merck counters that it tried to add language addressing the risk of a “Low-Energy Femoral Shaft Fracture,” but was prevented from doing so by the FDA, who affirmatively told Merck to “hold off” on adding any such language until the FDA could decide on “atypical fracture language, if it is warranted.”  Ultimately, the FDA rejected Merck’s proposed warning label, stating that the justification for such language was “inadequate.” The FDA reversed course the following year, and Merck then added a risk of atypical femoral fracture to Fosamax’s label.

Based on these facts, Merck moved for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s failure-to-warn claims, arguing that such claims were preempted under Wyeth v. Levine because “clear evidence” demonstrated that the FDA would not—and did not—approve of the proposed label change.  The District Court agreed, but the Third Circuit did not, holding instead that: (1) Levine’s reference to “‘clear evidence’ referred solely to the applicable standard of proof,” which Merck failed to satisfy; and (2) the issue of whether the FDA would have rejected the label change was a fact question for the jury, (see Fosamax [Merck] Appeal U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit).

SCOTUS RULED 9-0

Additional Concurring Opinion on the judgment only (Jury vs Judge only) from Justices Cavanaugh, Alito’s  and Chief Justice Roberts could be interpreted as allowing lower court Judges to consider other Official acts by the FDA other than those delineated above however, the additional opinion did not define what official acts other than the two discussed could be considered and inasmuch as these two official actions are constitute the limit of the powers relevant to such matters, delegated to the FDA by Congress, it is doubtful that a defendant could show a lower court Judge any other document (without posing hypotheticals) that would constitute an official action taken by the FDA that would have prevented the defendant from meeting its State Law duties (impossibility preemption).

In that the only powers delegated to the FDA by Congress (powers under the law) are those defined in the two types of actions listed above, relevant to the type of impossibility preemption arguments that were raised in Fosamax, based on unofficial actions, communications and statements from the FDA (and that defendants hoped to raise in numerous other cases) the Fosamax ruling taken in its entity, is a major blow to defendants hoping to open major cracks in Wyeth v Levine.

The central issue in this case concerns federal preemption, which as relevant here, takes place when it is “‘impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements.’” Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U. S. 472, 480 (2013). See also U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. The state law that we consider is state common law or state statutes that require drug manufacturers to warn drug consumers of the risks associated with drugs. The federal law that we consider is the statutory and regulatory scheme through which the FDA regulates the information that appears on brand-name prescription drug labels. The alleged conflict between state and federal law in this case has to do with a drug that was manufactured by petitioner Merck Sharp & Dohme and was administered to respondents without a warning of certain associated risks.

FOSAMAX HISTORY

Merck developed Fosamax to strengthen bones and reduce the risk of fractures from osteoporosis. However, numerous studies have linked the medication to an elevated risk of abnormal femur fractures. Furthermore, plaintiffs in the litigation argue that Merck had an intrinsic obligation to its consumers to provide stronger warnings that users could experience femur fractures from little or no trauma while taking the medication. This includes falling from standing height or less.

Merck introduced Fosamax in 1995, and the company didn’t add a thigh bone fracture risk warning label to the drug until 2011. Plaintiffs claim Merck knew about the risk for years but concealed it to maximize sales and profits.

Fosamax was a blockbuster drug with annual sales of over $3 billion, until the company  lost its exclusive patent rights in 2008, even then the brand name drug still brought in $284 million in sales in 2016.

MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. v. ALBRECHT Opinion of the Court(excerpt)

III

We turn now to what is the determinative question before us:

Is the question of agency disapproval primarily one of fact, normally for juries to decide, or is it a question of law, normally for a judge to decide without a jury?

The complexity of the preceding discussion of the law helps to illustrate why we answer this question by concluding that the question is a legal one for the judge, not a jury. The question often involves the use of legal skills to determine whether agency disapproval fits facts that are not in dispute. Moreover, judges, rather than lay juries, are better equipped to evaluate the nature and scope of an agency’s determination. Judges are experienced in “[t]he construction of written instruments,” such as those normally produced by a federal agency to memorialize its considered judgments. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370, 388 (1996). And judges are better suited than are juries to understand and to interpret agency decisions in light of the governing statutory and regulatory context. Cf. 5 U. S. C. §706 (specifying that a “reviewing court,” not a jury, “shall . . . determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action”); see also H. R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., 44 (1946) (noting longstanding view that “questions respecting the . . . terms of any agency action” and its “application” are “questions of law”). To understand the question as a legal question for judges makes sense given the fact that judges are normally familiar with principles of administrative law. Doing so should produce greater uniformity among courts; and greater uniformity is normally a virtue when a question requires a determination concerning the scope and effect of federal agency action. Cf. Markman, 517 U. S., at 390–391.

We understand that sometimes contested brute facts will prove relevant to a court’s legal determination about the meaning and effect of an agency decision. For example, if the FDA rejected a drug manufacturer’s supplemental application to change a drug label on the ground that the information supporting the application was insufficient to warrant a labeling change, the meaning and scope of that decision might depend on what information the FDA had before it. Yet in litigation between a drug consumer and a drug manufacturer (which will ordinarily lack an official administrative record for an FDA decision), the litigants may dispute whether the drug manufacturer submitted all material information to the FDA.

But we consider these factual questions to be subsumed within an already tightly circumscribed legal analysis. And we do not believe that they warrant submission alone or together with the larger pre-emption question to a jury. Rather, in those contexts where we have determined that the question is “for the judge and not the jury,” we have also held that “courts may have to resolve subsidiary factual disputes” that are part and parcel of the broader legal question.  Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2015) (slip op., at 6– 7). And, as in contexts as diverse as the proper construction of patent claims and the voluntariness of criminal confessions, they create a question that “‘falls somewhere between a pristine legal standard and a simple historical fact.’” Markman, 517 U. S., at 388 (quoting Miller v. Fenton, 474 U. S. 104, 114 (1985)). In those circumstances, “‘the fact/law distinction at times has turned on a determination that, as a matter of the sound administration of justice, one judicial actor is better positioned than another to decide the issue in question.’” Markman, 517 U. S., at 388 (quoting Miller, 474 U. S., at 114). In this context, that “better positioned” decisionmaker is the judge.

 IV

Because the Court of Appeals treated the pre-emption question as one of fact, not law, and because it did not have an opportunity to consider fully the standards we have described in Part II of our opinion, we vacate its judgment and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

____________________________________________________________

How Big Pharma’s cadre of lobbyists and congressional insiders attempt to reap major dividends, as we address the Fosamax ruling remains to be seen, but considering the wide-open lack of federal oversight for pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers by the current administration, it would appear that Big Pharma investments in the FDA and related oversight agencies is paying off very well.

To access the most relevant and real time information on Mass Torts  sign up for:

Mass Tort Nexus “CLE Immersion Course”

May 31 – June 3, 2019 at The Riverside Hotel in Fort Lauderdale , FL

For class attendance information please contact Anne Marie Kopek at 954.837.3423 or AnneMarie@masstortnexus.com.

  1. For the most up-to-date information on all MDL dockets and related mass torts visit  www.masstortnexus.com and review our mass tort briefcases and professional site MDL briefcases.
  2. To obtain our free newsletters that contains real time mass tort updates, visit www.masstortnexus.com/news and sign up for free access.

 

Read More

FDA BANS THE USE OF PELVIC MESH PRODUCTS – How Will This Affect The TVM Litigation?

Will this move by the FDA re-ignite the mass tort engine in TVM litigation or possibly force settlement in Ethicon TVM MDL 2327?

By Mark A. York (April 17, 2019)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Manufacturers of pelvic synthetic surgical mesh products must stop selling and distributing their products in the United States immediately, the US Food and Drug Administration ordered Tuesday. The surgical mesh is typically used to repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and incontinence, but reported side effects have included permanent incontinence, severe discomfort and an inability to have sex.  The key issue with the product for many years is the fact that its made from polypropylene, basically the same material as fishing line.

The FDA said it “has determined that the manufacturers, Boston Scientific and Coloplast, have not demonstrated a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for these devices.”

The FDA said its April 16, 2019 action to remove surgical mesh products from the market is part of its commitment to ensuring the safety of medical devices. In a November statement, the agency said that it “regulates more than 190,000 different devices, which are manufactured by more than 18,000 firms in more than 21,000 medical device facilities worldwide.”

FDA Release January 4, 2019

FDA strengthens requirements for surgical mesh for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to address safety risks

Summary: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued two final orders to manufacturers and the public to strengthen the data requirements for surgical mesh to repair pelvic organ prolapse (POP) transvaginally, or through the vagina. The FDA issued one order to reclassify these medical devices from class II, which generally includes moderate-risk devices, to class III, which generally includes high-risk devices, and a second order that requires manufacturers to submit a premarket approval (PMA) application to support the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh for the transvaginal repair of POP.

FDA Finally Takes Action

Each year, thousands of women undergo transvaginal surgery to repair pelvic organ prolapse, a condition where weakened muscles and ligaments cause the pelvic organs to drop lower in the pelvis, creating a bulge or prolapse in the vagina. In the 1990s, gynecologists began implanting surgical mesh for the transvaginal repair of the condition and in 2002, the first mesh device specifically for this purpose was cleared for use by the FDA, according to the agency’s statement.

“We couldn’t assure women that these devices were safe and effective long term,” said Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

For years, medical device companies have stated that the products they are developing and placing into the marketplace are safe and helping patients in the USA and worldwide. That is often not the case and people around the world are suffering.

Medical device makers and compensated doctors have touted FDA approved implants and other devices as the surgical cure for millions of patients suffering from a wide range of pain disorders, making them one of the fastest-growing products in the $400 billion medical device industry. Companies and doctors aggressively push them as a safe antidote to the deadly opioid crisis in the U.S. and as a treatment for an aging population in need of chronic pain relief and many other afflictions.

2017 Pelvic Mesh Study in England Showed High Number of Adverse Events:

Scientific Reports Volume 7, Article number: 12015 (2017) |

Complications following vaginal mesh procedures for stress urinary incontinence: an 8 year study of 92,246 women

Conclusions

Summary: This is the largest study to date of surgical mesh insertions for SUI. It includes all NHS patients in England over an 8-year period. We estimate that 9.8% of patients undergoing surgical mesh insertion for SUI experienced a complication peri-procedurally, within 30-days or within 5 years of the initial mesh insertion procedure. This is likely a lower estimate of the true incidence. Given concerns about the safety of these procedures, this study provides robust data to inform both individual decision-making and national guidance.

Why Device Makers Tout FDA Approvals

  1. “Medtronic receives FDA clearance for two heart devices”
  2. “FDA approves device to help curb cluster headaches”
  3. MRI approved for young infants in intensive care

Manufacturer headlines like these instill consumer confidence that medical devices are safe and effective. After all, they have the FDA’s stamp of approval, right? NO!

The reality is, the FDA seldom requires rigorous evidence that a device works well–and safely–before allowing it onto the market. Medical devices are the diverse array of non-drug products used to diagnosis and treat medical conditions, from bandages to MRI scanners to smartphone apps to artificial hips.

This low standard of evidence applies to even the highest risk devices such as those that are implanted in a person’s body. Surgical mesh, pacemakers and gastric weight loss balloons are just a few examples of devices that have had serious safety problems.

Devices are subject to weaker standards than drugs because they’re regulated under a different law. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 was intended to encourage innovation while allowing for a range of review standards based on risk, according to legal expert Richard A. Merrill. An array of corporate lobbying has since prompted Congress to ease regulations and make it easier for devices to get the FDA’s approval.

In 2011, an Institute of Medicine panel recommended that the “flawed” system be replaced, because it does not actually establish safety and effectiveness. At the time the FDA said it disagreed with the group’s recommendations.

Defective devices cleared through this system have included hip replacements that failed prematurely, surgical mesh linked to pain and bleeding and a surgical instrument that inadvertently spread uterine cancer.

Bard took the Avaulta implants off the market in 2012 and did the same with the Align inserts in 2016. The company chose to remove the products the day after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2010 ordered Bard and other mesh-manufacturers, including Johnson & Johnson (Ethicon), Boston Scientific and Endo (American Medical S), to review their mesh products, which also resulted in J&J removing four lines of synthetic surgical mesh products from the market. .J&J’s Ethicon subsidiary is facing more than 50 thousand lawsuits regarding its synthetic mesh device in Ethicon (J&J) Pelvic Mesh TVM Litigation MDL-2327.

The Ethicon MDL is in the same West Virginia federal court as the Bard and other mesh manufacturer multidistrict litigation, which are all being heard by Judge Goodwin.  Judge Goodwin has previously expressed his frustration with the parties not engaging in substantive settlements discussions to resolve the thousands of cases, the one option he has is to begin remanding cases back for trial in court venues around the country, possibly forcing both sides to begin earnest settlement talks. Goodwin has held hearings with leadership attorneys from both sides appearing before the court to possibly kickstart settlements. He has gone so far as to warn mesh manufacturers that if they do not settle, U.S. juries appear poised to inflict hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages on them in thousands of cases that would overload the federal judicial system for years to come.

The FDA forcing mesh manufacturers to stop the use of synthetic mesh is long overdue, and how this action results in renewed interest by mass tort firms across the country, remains to be seen. Regardless, it would seem that Ethicon and the other defendants in the pending TVM litigation that have been unwilling to discuss settlement, may now be forced to deal with the catastrophic consequences of manufacturing and marketing medical devices that have injured untold thousands of patients around the world.

To access the most current TVM case status and other real time information on Mass Torts  sign up for:

Mass Tort Nexus “CLE Immersion Course”

May 31 to June 3, 2019 at The Riverside Hotel in Fort Lauderdale , FL

For class attendance information please contact  Barbara Capasso 954.383.3932 or Barbara@masstortnexus.com

  1. For the most up-to-date information on all MDL dockets and related mass torts visit www.masstortnexus.com and review our mass tort briefcases and professional site MDL briefcases.
  2. To obtain our free newsletters that contains real time mass tort updates, visit www.masstortnexus.com/news and sign up for free access.

 

 

Read More

The FDA Revamped Their Website

 

 

https://www.fda.gov/ as of April 26, 2019

 

 FDA has announced the launch of a newly redesigned FDA public access website. They have made changes to provide a more modern and customer friendly access for the public. The new FDA website launch was completed April 26, 2019.

PRODUCTS THE FDA REGULATES

FoodDrugsMedical DevicesRadiation-Emitting ProductsVaccines, Blood, and BiologicsAnimal and VeterinaryCosmetics and Tobacco Products

____________________________________________________________

The FDA public website receives nearly 5 million visitors—consumers, health professionals, scientists/researchers, and industry stakeholders each month. It serves as the face of the agency and a critical vehicle for meeting FDA’s mission, as it’s home to agency policy and perspectives and information about recalls, safety alerts and important regulatory actions. Ensuring that this content is easy to find is a top priority.

The FDA has attempted to make the FDA.gov website more user friendly, by redesigning not only the functionality, but the way it looks as well. The new FDA site is cleaner and the overall layout is less distracting and the content is much more contemporary.

The goals for the new FDA.gov website include:

https://www.fda.gov/

  • Remodeled webpages that can be viewed on any internet-ready device
  • Easier access to popular content
  • Updated navigation based on data and audience behavior
  • Easier to find FDA content in search results
  • Better consistency of FDA content across web and social channels

The FDA.gov website refresh centers around the migration to a new web content management system (WCMS). The current WCMS is end-of-life and we are replacing it with a new modern publishing platform.

Here are some of the things we are doing to improve FDA.gov:

  • Using data to archive and expire webpages that aren’t being used, consolidating similar content/renaming page titles to reduce redundancy so it’s easier for online audiences to find what they are looking for.
  • Adding stronger and more relevant metadata to the webpages to optimize them for search and social media.
  • Updating FDA.gov’s design to provide more visuals and interactive content. Overall the site will have a more modern look-and-feel. FDA content will appear consistently regardless of web and social channels.
  • Upgrading to a modern publishing platform ensures that our content is accessible anywhere, anytime and on any device.

WHAT THE FDA DOES AND LINKS TO RESOURCES.GOV

FDA Mission

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, and medical devices; and by ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

FDA also has responsibility for regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.

FDA is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medical products more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medical products and foods to maintain and improve their health.

FDA also plays a significant role in the Nation’s counterterrorism capability. FDA fulfills this responsibility by ensuring the security of the food supply and by fostering development of medical products to respond to deliberate and naturally emerging public health threats.

FDA’s Regulatory Responsibilities: Laws and Regulations

Product Approval

Recalls, News, and Events

Guidance Documents, Rulemaking, and Freedom of Information

Navigating The New FDA Site

Being a large and diverse agency with aesthetics apart, just keeping track of pathways and names is overwhelming in such a complex website, and it is easy to lose track of what needs to be updated.  The FDA stated that one of the goals was to make the site more friendly to consumers and it has improved. The former site ran banner photos of some topical interest, the new site landing pages feature a topic with a photo array focused on a feature topic. To get to the information, you need to click on the box announcing the feature, not the photos. Key to success for this approach will be topics that change out frequently as well as the topics themselves. This month’s is about children and allergy relief, timely given the time of year and the number of children, but perhaps not as serious as the recall of blood pressure medications.

Each FDA division – DrugsFoodMedical Devices has “featured information” that generally mirrors the FDA landing page (though stylistically there is not consistency across all divisions in terms of layout). For FDA to achieve its consumer friendly goal here they will have to work at providing information that is of interest to consumers and not necessarily just focus on that information FDA wants most to talk about.

Longer, Less Crowded Landing Page – It used to be when you went to FDA’s landing page, you had a LOT of information crammed into the screen offering you pathways in a bunch of different directions at once – from links to speeches to advisory committee information to meetings information to the latest press releases, etc. All of that is still on the landing page, but it is more coherently laid out. That means that there is less splashed in your face on the screen, but the content has been elongated – and you now have to scroll down to find all the bits and pieces. That may not be entirely apparent to some. As you scroll down, you come to additional featured topics beyond the main one mentioned above. Right now one of them includes a link to information about the revamp of the site; a link to information about combatting opioids and one on FDA fostering drug competition. As noted above, these topics fall a little more into the category of things FDA may want to say versus the things we want to hear more about from a consumer perspective. As you scroll down, you come to press announcements (where curiously the title of the section is in smaller type than the titles of the most recent press releases). Scrolling down further takes you past many of the links that were formerly crammed into the landing square of the old site. It is almost all still there, just there more for your leisurely scrolling rather than in your face. But not everything is on the landing page. For that you need the next section.

Menu Function is Key – In the upper right hand corner is the Menu Function. You are going to need this as it is the key to providing you a one-size fits all access to various divisions of the agency. It takes you to a site-map-lite that is actually very helpful if there are some specific things you want to look up. Most notably on the left side are a list of “featured links”. These are vital. They take you not only to guidance documents, but also one is the link that gets you to Advisory Committee information — to the page that is set up for each committee containing such information as the committee roster and meeting notices as well as documents related to specific meetings. To the right of this menu you will also find access to the FDA’s divisions, though it is not called that – instead it is called “Products”. Under that heading you will not see links to “CDER”, “CBER” or the others and where is the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion? Actually CDER, CBER and the others are there, but they are not called that. They are under their generic names (haha) – Drugs, Food, Medical Devices, Radiation-Emitting Products, etc. FDA may want to consider adding the acronyms here. These pages are generally laid out in similar fashion to the initial agency landing page, with a heading that is meant to cover topical information, prompting the user to scroll down to find the bits desired. Here you will find a link as you travel down the page to the Warning and Untitled Letters issued (still only one issued this year so far). The link to the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion exists but not on this page – it is under the About FDA Tab, and then drilling down through organizational structure through CDER there before you find it – here.

Finding Specifics Related to Function in the About FDA Link – One thing you don’t see when you go to the Drug page or the Food page or any of the other division pages is a map for getting to where you want to go within that division (hence the lack of an OPDP link from the Drugs Page). To find that level of detail – to find a specific office that does a specific function, you may have to either conduct a Search (which can offer up a messy slew of links) or go to the About FDA link mentioned above. Here’s the thing – that is in very small letters at the very bottom of the landing page. It is a small, obscure link to an important function. Overall, navigation of the site is less confusing now that everything is removed from a single frame shot. The order of things as you scroll down is pretty logical, though the demarcation of sections is subtle. Of note, if you have links to FDA materials at any site, some of the material may have shifted.

Read More

False Narratives Opioids and Xarelto

Mass Tort Nexus is compiling an evidentiary package for law firms who intend to reject the current Xarelto settlement offer and prepare for trial. This article represents an extremely small segment of what any firm who prepares for trial will have at their disposal; however, we believe most everyone involved in Mass Torts might find the following topic interesting.

It is well known how Big Pharma allegedly promoted a false narrative regarding Opioids and the risk posed by these highly addictive drugs. Despite the fact that thousands of people were dying every year from opioid overdose, doctors seemed unaware that the narrative they had bought into was false.

What might the death toll ultimately be for the new anticoagulants?

We are aware that both the Xarelto primary defendants are also accused of being party to the opioid false narrative conspiracy in opioid litigation complaints.  If Big Pharma can keep doctors prescribing opioids like skittles for decades, despite the rising death toll, how hard could it be to keep doctors prescribing an anticoagulant with a few tweaks to the truth?

Why Did Doctors Prescribe Xarelto and Why do they Continue to Prescribe Xarelto?

The clinical trials for Xarelto did not prove the drug to be superior in efficacy to Warfarin, only “non inferior.” It was not a better drug from an efficacy stand point. Doctors had no reason to switch patients to Xarelto because it “worked better” than Warfarin.

Xarelto is exponentially more expensive that Warfarin, so doctors had to reason to switch patients to Xarelto based on cost.

What were the makers of Xarelto able to claim about their new (unproven in the general patient population) to convince them to switch patients to Xarelto?

  1. No Routine Blood Testing (monitoring.)
  2. No Dietary Restrictions.

What if these claims were false, patients do need routine blood monitoring while on Xarelto?

What if patients taking Xarelto do need to restrict their diet (not consume certain food products?)

Would doctors keep prescribing Xarelto? Probably not, if the arguably false narrative first presented to them was corrected (warned) as having been false. That said, once a claim is made, people, including doctors, are not likely to realize that the claim is no longer being made once they have bought into the claim, unless they are specifically informed that the claim might have been false.

The following will explain why the makers of Xarelto may have stopped claiming (in their television and print ads,) that patients taking Xarelto did not need routine blood testing nor adhere to any dietary restrictions.

We will first review Xarelto television spots beginning in 2013 and more recent ads. Then we will explain why the makers of Xarelto quit claiming that users of their product stopped claiming that:

  1. No Routine Blood Testing (monitoring) was needed.
  2. No dietary restrictions.

You may view a larger selection of ads than those provided below at: https://www.ispot.tv/brands/ISA/xarelto

2013: Xarelto Bob Ad  (both “no routine monitoring” and “no dietary restrictions claims made”.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7dJt/xarelto-bob

Start at 16 Seconds, “Bob took Wafarin and made a monthly trip to the clintic to get his blood tested but not anymore.”

Start at  36 Seconds,   “Xarelto is the first and only once per day prescription blood thinner… That does not require rountine Blood Monitoring.”

Start at 57 Seconds, “and there’s no dietary restrictions…Bob can eat the health foods he likes. ”

2014 Mary Ad (both “no routine monitoring” and “no dietary restrictions claims made.”)

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7pGC/xarelto-mary-song-by-arturo-cardelus

Start at 12 Seconds  “Which required monthly testing, but that’s history.”

Start at 56 Seconds “Plus with no Known Dietary Restrictions.”

2015  Arnold Palmer (they did not specifically say no routine testing and dietary restrictions, but they  implied the claims. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/AYGi/xarelto-game-plan-feat-chris-bosh-arnold-palmer-brian-vickers

Start at 29 Seconds (claims worked into general conversation)

article link: https://www.masstortnexus.com/News/366/Did-Xarelto-the-Drug-Arnold-Palmer-Promoted-Lead-to-His-Death?

2016: Jerry West (neither of the claims were made in this ad.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/ARh_/xarelto-high-risk-of-stroke-featuring-jerry-west

2017  Xarelto “Protect Themselves” ad feature authority figures  (neither of the claims were made in this ad.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wtdp/xarelto-protect-themselves

2018  “Learn all you can ad” (we do not think irony was intended), (neither of the claims were made in this ad)

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wPmP/xarelto-learn-all-you-can

So Why Did the Makers of Xarelto Quit Making Their “Claims to Fame?”

We will first address why the makers of Xarelto most likely stopped making the “no rountine blood testing (monitoring claim.) This answer to this one is easy; Because the FDA warned them about making this claim.

It is difficult to understand why the makers of Xarelto did not unilaterally determine (and warn that their original messaging no routine blood monitoring needed) might have been misleading based solely on the number of adverse events reported to the FDA since the product’s introduction.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Food and Drug Administration

Silver Spring, MD 20993

Roxanne McGregor-Beck, Director

Johnson & Johnson International, Inc.

1000 Route 202 South

P.O. Box 300

Raritan, New Jersey 08869-0602

 

RE: NDA #202439

XARELTO (rivaroxaban) tablets

MA #215

Dear Ms. McGregor-Beck:

The Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed a direct-to-consumer (DTC) print advertisement (K02XS121040 AF) (Print Ad) for XARELTO (rivaroxaban) tablets (Xarelto) submitted by Johnson & Johnson International, Inc. (Johnson & Johnson) on behalf of Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. under cover of Form FDA 2253 and observed during routine surveillance in the January/February 2013 issue of WebMD magazine. The Print Ad is false or misleading because it minimizes the risks associated with Xarelto and makes a misleading claim. Thus, the Print Ad misbrands Xarelto in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 352(n) and FDA implementing regulations. 21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)(i); (e)(7)(viii), (ix).

Background:

Below is the indication and summary of the most serious and most common risks associated with the use of Xarelto.1 According to its FDA-approved product labeling (PI), in pertinent part:

Xarelto is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

There are limited data on the relative effectiveness of XARELTO and warfarin in reducing the risk of stroke and systemic embolism when warfarin therapy is well controlled.

 The PI for Xarelto contains Boxed Warnings regarding increased risk of stroke after discontinuation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and the risk of spinal/epidural

hematoma. The PI also contains Contraindications regarding active pathological bleeding and severe hypersensitivity reaction to Xarelto, as well as Warnings and Precautions regarding the risk of bleeding, use in patients with renal impairment and hepatic impairment, use with P-gp and strong CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers, and risk of pregnancy related hemorrhage. The most common adverse reactions with Xarelto were bleeding complications.

Minimization of Risk Information

 Promotional materials are false or misleading if they fail to present risks associated with a drug with a prominence and readability reasonably comparable with the presentation of information relating to the benefits of the drug. Factors impacting prominence and readability include typography, layout, contrast, headlines, paragraphing, white space, and other techniques apt to achieve emphasis. The Print ad prominently presents various efficacy claims for Xarelto, such as, but not limited to, the following, that are presented in large, bolded and/or colorful text and graphics (emphasis original):

• “If you have atrial fibrillation (AFib)”

• “Ready to break your AFib routine?”

• “XARELTO® is the first and only once-a-day prescription blood thinner for patients with AFib not caused by a heart valve problem, that is proven to reduce

the risk of stroke—without routine blood monitoring.”

• “…With XARELTO®, there’s no routine blood monitoring—so you have more time for yourself. There are no dietary restrictions, so you’re free to enjoy the healthy foods you love. And there are no dosage adjustments, which means you can manage your risk with just one pill a day, taken with your evening meal. Learn how XARELTO® can help simplify your AFib-related stroke risk treatment….”

In contrast, the risk information is presented on the preceding adjacent page without any of the emphasis (i.e. color scheme, borders, layout, and graphics) used with the efficacy claims. The result is a presentation which appears unconnected to the efficacy claims and is therefore not likely to draw readers’ attention. This overall presentation misleadingly  minimizes the risks associated with Xarelto because it fails to convey this important risk information with a prominence and readability reasonably comparable to the efficacy claims. We note that the Print Ad contains the statement, “Please see accompanying Medication Guide on the following pages” (emphasis original) at the bottom of the page, and that risk information is presented on an adjacent page, but this is not sufficient to mitigate the overall misleading presentation.

Misleading Claim

 The Print Ad includes the following claim (emphasis original):

• “And there are no dosage adjustments…”

The above claim misleadingly suggests that dosage adjustments are not necessary with Xarelto. However, according to the DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION section of the PI, the dose should be lowered to 15 mg once daily for patients with renal impairment who may have a CrCL of 15 to 50 mL/min. In addition, the WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS section of the PI states, “…Periodically assess renal function as clinically indicated…and adjust therapy accordingly….” Thus, patients with renal impairment may need to have their dosage adjusted while on Xarelto therapy.

Conclusion and Requested Action

For the reasons discussed above, the Print Ad misbrands Xarelto in violation of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 352(n) and FDA implementing regulations. 21 CFR 202.1(e)(5)(i); (e)(7)(viii), (ix). OPDP requests that Johnson & Johnson immediately cease the dissemination of violative promotional materials for Xarelto such as those described above. Please submit a written response to this letter on or before June 20, 2013, stating whether you intend to comply with this request, listing all promotional materials (with the 2253 submission date) for Xarelto that contain violations such as those described above, and explaining your plan for discontinuing use of such violative materials.

Please direct your response to the undersigned at the Food and Drug Administration,

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, 5901-B Ammendale Road, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-1266 or by facsimile at (301) 847-8444. To ensure timely delivery of your submissions, please use the full address above and include a prominent directional notation (e.g. a sticker) to indicate that the submission is intended for OPDP. Please refer to MA# 215 in addition to the NDA number in all future correspondence relating to this particular matter. OPDP reminds you that only written communications are considered official. The violations discussed in this letter do not necessarily constitute an exhaustive list. It is your responsibility to ensure that your promotional materials for Xarelto comply with each applicable requirement of the FD&C Act and FDA implementing regulations.

Sincerely,

{See appended electronic signature page}

Zarna Patel, Pharm.D.

Regulatory Review Officer

Office of Prescription Drug Promotion

{See appended electronic signature page}

Amy Toscano, Pharm.D., RAC, CPA

Team Leader

Office of Prescription Drug Promotion

____________________________________________________________________________________

It is difficult to understand why the makers of Xarelto did not unilaterally determine (and warn that their original messaging (no routine blood monitoring needed) might have been misleading bases solely on the number of adverse events reported to the FDA since the products introduction.

 

 

 

 

 

https://fis.fda.gov/sense/app/d10be6bb-494e-4cd2-82e4-0135608ddc13/sheet/59a37af8-d2bb-4dee-90bf-6620b1d5542f/state/analysis

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://fis.fda.gov/sense/app/d10be6bb-494e-4cd2-82e4-0135608ddc13/sheet/59a37af8-d2bb-4dee-90bf-6620b1d5542f/state/analysis

Having not corrected their prior claims (warned) related to the need for routine blood testing (monitoring) the makers of Xarelto did add the words underlined (below) to the label for Xarelto NDA -022406 in November of 2018. This statement in no way corrects the arguably false prior statements related to “No Routine Blood Testing” needed.  This statement simply warns that many of the common “blood monitoring tests used” are not recommended for individuals using Xarelto. A more accurate statement might have been: “These tests have no diagnostic value for individuals on Xarelto,” as the drug skews the test, and not in a predictable fashion, which would allow for adjustment of the test results.

Do these two statements seem the same to you?

  1. No Routine Blood Monitoring Needed with Xarelto.
  2. The test routinely used for anticoagulation monitoring has no diagnostic value for individuals taking Xarelto.

Which of the above two statements would likely increase revenues from the drug and which one would likely have the opposite effect?

11/07/2018 (SUPPL-29)

Approved Drug Label (PDF)

5 Warnings and Precautions

5.2 Risk of Bleeding

Reversal of Anticoagulant Effect

Additions and/or revisions underlined:

… anticoagulant activity of rivaroxaban. Use of procoagulant reversal agents, such as prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), activated prothrombin complex concentrate or recombinant factor VIIa, may be considered but has not been evaluated in clinical efficacy and safety studies. Monitoring for the anticoagulation effect of rivaroxaban using a clotting test (PT, INR or aPTT) or anti-factor Xa (FXa) activity is not recommended.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/safetylabelingchanges/index.cfm?event=searchdetail.page&DrugNameID=287

“Now We Turn to “No Dietary Restrictions Necessary”

 06/28/2017 (SUPPL-23)

Approved Drug Label (PDF)

5 Warnings and Precautions

5.2 Risk of Bleeding

(additions underlined)

(excerpts)

5.6 Use with P-gp and Strong CYP3A4 Inhibitors or Inducers

(additions underlined)

Avoid concomitant use of XARELTO with known combined P-gp and strong CYP3A4 inhibitors.

Avoid concomitant use of XARELTO with drugs that are known combined P-gp and strong CYP3A4 inducers.

7 Drug Interactions

7.1 General Inhibition and Induction Properties

(additions underlined)

Rivaroxaban is a substrate of CYP3A4/5, CYP2J2, and the P-gp and ATP-binding cassette G2 (ABCG2) transporters. Combined P-gp and strong CYP3A4 inhibitors increase exposure to rivaroxaban and may increase the risk of bleeding. Combined P-gp and strong CYP3A4 inducers decrease exposure to rivaroxaban and may increase the risk of thromboembolic events.

7.2 Drugs that Inhibit Cytochrome P450 3A4 Enzymes and Drug Transport Systems

Interaction with Combined P-gp and Moderate CYP3A4 Inhibitors in Patients with Renal Impairment

XARELTO should not be used in patients with CrCl 15 to <80 mL/min who are receiving concomitant combined P-gp and moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors (e.g., erythromycin) unless the potential benefit justifies the potential risk.

End excerpt

What is the significance of the above?

The inducers make the user more susceptible to clots (ischemic stroke, DVT, PE, etc.)

The inhibitors make the user more likely to bleed.

On a side note, the GI tract is significant to the actions of CYPE4A as well as P-gp. And if you remember from above, what was the most reported AE with Xarelto:

 

So what does the use of Strong and Moderate CYP34A and P-gp Inhibitors and Inducers have to do with dietary restrictions?

Most everyone is familiar with the fact that some drugs carry a warning about restricting grapefruit juice from your diet while on the given drug (i.e. statins).

The relation to the above and the “no dietary restrictions” claim, that the makers of Xarelto use to promote their drug (and then stopped making but did not correct the narrative) is simple. There are numerous foods which are CYP34A, and P-gp inhibitors and/or inducers. We provide a small sampling of foods and dietary supplements below.

The dietary restrictions associated with Warfarin restricted foods high in Vitamin K, like Kale (yummy Kale).

Xarelto Potential Food Restrictions

It is worth nothing that due to genetic differences, the strength of a given CYP34A and P-gp Inhibitor or Inducer necessary to interfere with a drug is not the same for everyone. Women as a general rule are more susceptible to the effects of CYP34A and P-gp Inhibitors or Inducers than men.

Grape Fruit Juice: Inhibits CYP34A and P-gp Seville Orange Juice CYP34A and P-gp
Lime Juice Inhibits CYP34A Lemon Juice Inhibits CYP34A
Pomegranate Juice Inhibits CYP34A Star Fruit Juice Inhibits CYP34A
Kiwi Juice Inhibits CYP34A Passion Fruit Juice Inhibits CYP34A
 St. John’s wort Induction of P-gp Ginkgo Biloba Induces P-gp

 In addition to food interactions Approximately 50% of prescription drugs either induce or inhibit CYP34A or P-gp.

While many drugs are deactivated by CYP3A4, there are also some drugs which are activated by the enzyme. Some substances, such as grapefruit juice and some drugs, interfere with the action of CYP3A4. These substances will therefore either amplify or weaken the action of those drugs that are modified by CYP3A4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP3A4

So, what the Xarelto label (warnings) universally adequate in 2015, 2016 or today?

We think not!

Read More

FDA Statement March 15, 2019 Re: “Efforts to evaluate materials in medical devices to address potential safety questions”  

 

Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D. and Jeff Shuren, M.D., Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, on efforts to evaluate materials in medical devices to address potential safety questions

For Immediate Release

March 15, 2019

FDA Statement

We’re in an unprecedented era of innovation in medical devices with advances in materials science that have led to technological breakthroughs such as the 3D printing of medical devices, continuous glucose monitoring patches for diabetes and miniaturized brain implants to treat epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease. Helping to ensure patients have access to safe medical devices that improve function and overall quality of life is a crucial part of the mission of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Our regulatory framework is designed to ensure that benefits patients receive from these devices are weighed against probable risks.

The vast majority of patients implanted with medical devices have no adverse reactions. The device works and performs as expected to treat medical conditions or help patients better manage their health. However, a growing body of evidence suggests that a small number of patients may have biological responses to certain types of materials in implantable or insertable devices. For example, they develop inflammatory reactions and tissue changes causing pain and other symptoms that may interfere with their quality of life.

Materials used in today’s medical devices vary as widely as the devices themselves—whether the material is metal, plastic, silicone, an animal-derived product or some combination of these. Because, in the case of implantable or insertable devices, these materials come into contact with tissue or other parts of the body for sometimes extended periods of time, we do a careful evaluation during our premarket review to determine if there is a potential adverse biological response resulting from contact of the device’s component materials with the body and whether the associated risks are unacceptable.

Specifically, we review information about the materials used in the composition of the device and require companies to include a biocompatibility evaluation or risk analysis, as well as clinical studies, when appropriate. In 2016, we finalized updated guidance for industry laying out what we look for in biocompatibility evaluations in order to ensure device manufacturers have adequately assessed the potential of their device to cause adverse biological responses in patients. By clarifying expectations for all devices requiring premarket submissions, we are helping to ensure that manufacturers are providing evidence that demonstrates that any risk to patient health or safety has been adequately evaluated prior to marketing.

These steps help to address any risks that may be posed by, for example, the potential presence of harmful chemicals or materials that might trigger allergic or other adverse reactions in some individuals. While such testing generally has been a reliable predictor of a material’s safety, we also recognize the importance of advancing the science we rely on to evaluate device materials and patient risk factors both before and after devices enter the market to assure we optimally reduce risks to patients and maximize benefits. Once a device is on the market we have a number of tools in place to monitor a device’s benefit-risk profile as it is used in a real-world setting. In cases where new information about safety or effectiveness becomes available, we can and have taken action to inform patients and health care providers about new risks or safety considerations and how to mitigate those risks. These actions include working with companies to recall and correct issues that arise postmarket, issuing safety communications or other updates for health care providers or patients about safe use of devices, requiring boxed warnings or contraindications be added to labeling, requiring postmarket studies, and up-classifying devices to allow us to regulate them more stringently, as we did with metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices. We are also working to fully implement the National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST) that will link and synthesize data from different sources including clinical registries, electronic health records and medical billing claims; this will help improve the quality of real-world evidence that will empower the FDA to more quickly identify, communicate and act on new or increased medical device safety concerns.

Our understanding of medical technologies evolves over time. As we learn more about long-term effects of materials and as materials science advances and new innovations become a reality, it’s imperative our regulation of devices evolves along with these advances to ensure patients are protected.

Prior to, and as part of, our April 2018 Medical Device Safety Action Plan, the FDA has been carefully evaluating the body of evidence on this issue. This includes current published studies, and information submitted to us as reports in our public adverse events database or through data from postmarket studies that we required manufacturers to conduct. We also have our own team of FDA scientists and engineers conducting research to better understand device materials in our Center for Devices and Radiological Health’s (CDRH) Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories (OSEL).

Based on our evaluation and discussions with experts elsewhere in the government and academia, we believe the current evidence, although limited, suggests some individuals may be predisposed to develop an immune/inflammatory reaction when exposed to select materials.

The symptoms some patients experience may be limited to the region where the device is implanted or may be more generalized. Symptoms include but are not limited to fatigue, rash, joint and muscle pain or weakness. Although uncommon and varied, these symptoms may share common underlying immune/inflammatory pathways and mimic more well-established inflammatory conditions.

In the small subsets of patients who have reported these symptoms, the symptoms may not develop for several years following implantation. As a result, they may not be detected even in larger and longer clinical studies. To date, these symptoms have not been reported with most materials used in medical devices, including most metals. Moreover, when reported, they have tended to be limited to small subsets of patients.

As an example, some patients, mostly with a history of pre-existing allergies, may develop allergic skin lesions with certain device use. This risk is usually identified by patch testing for potential device material-related allergens. However, not all device-related reactions are allergic in nature. Therefore, the utility of skin patch testing is limited.

Enhancing our collective understanding of materials science could lead to identifying materials that may cause an exaggerated response in sensitive individuals and advance the development of safer materials. Development of new tests to identify at-risk patients would help ensure they do not receive implantable devices that contain the material to which they are sensitive, therefore further enhancing patient safety and advance a precision medicine approach to the selection of device interventions.

It’s clear more work needs to be done.

To this end, we’re undertaking a broad effort to engage the public, scientists and industry stakeholders to gather information and help us determine the current state of the science, critical gaps in the existing science that need to be addressed, what approaches should be considered to further our understanding of medical device materials and improve the safety of devices for patients.

Breast implants

Breast implants have a silicone outer shell, with either a textured or non-textured surface, and are filled with silicone gel or saline. The FDA has regularly communicated about risks associated with breast implants, such as capsular contracture, implant rupture and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). More confirmed cases of BIA-ALCL have been reported in patients with textured surface implants than in patients with smooth-surface breast implants. We’ve also heard from patients who are concerned that their implants may be connected to other health conditions that could be associated with their immune system’s response to these devices, resulting in symptoms like chronic fatigue, cognitive issues and muscle pain. While the FDA doesn’t have definitive evidence suggesting breast implants are associated with these conditions, we’re looking to gain a fuller understanding of this issue to communicate risk, minimize harm and help in the treatment of affected patients. This topic will be discussed at our upcoming two-day public meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel on March 25 and 26 and will be informed by our ongoing assessment of the long-term health effects of various materials.

In addition, we’ve been coordinating on two different breast implant registries to learn more about how these devices perform and interact with the body’s tissues at the cellular and organ levels. For instance, we worked with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons/the Plastic Surgery Foundation to develop the Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology (PROFILE). This registry collects real-world data regarding patients who have a confirmed diagnosis of BIA-ALCL. The data collected from this registry as well as from medical device reports submitted to the FDA, medical literature and meetings with patient advocates have contributed to our understanding of BIA-ALCL and our communication updates to the public regarding BIA-ALCL. Additionally, we’re working with multiple stakeholders to advance the development of the National Breast Implant Registry (NBIR) to provide a platform for evaluating real world data on the safety and performance of breast implants. This will help us better evaluate data from providers regarding their patients with breast implants.

We’ll continue to report on significant findings as new information and analyses become available and if any of these findings prompt the agency to issue new recommendations or policies to mitigate risks.

Metals in devices

Metal device implants have been used in patients for more than a century, beginning with bone- stabilizing plates to heal fractures and advancing to state-of-the-art stents, prostheses and implantable defibrillators. Many implants are meant to remain in a patient’s body for years or even a lifetime. During this time, we know that tiny amounts of metals may be gradually released into the bloodstream and surrounding tissues.

The FDA regularly conducts thorough reviews of the latest scientific evidence. We continue to find that most patients experience no adverse health effects from these metals interacting either locally where the devices are implanted or systemically throughout the body. However, after carefully reviewing the current scientific literature, reports in our public adverse event database as well as findings from post-approval and postmarket surveillance studies, we believe there’s a need to evaluate through a comprehensive process concerns that were brought to light with particular devices, such as metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices and the permanent birth control implant Essure, a coiled wire that’s composed of multiple metals, including nitinol (a nickel and titanium alloy) and stainless steel, and is inserted into a woman’s fallopian tubes.

Nitinol in devices

Last December, we announced a revised protocol for the postmarket surveillance study of the Essure device to, in part, better understand how the materials in the device interact with the body’s immune system. The FDA worked with Bayer, the manufacturer of the device, to make sure the company implemented several approved modifications to the study that we believe will strengthen the evidence collected.

First and foremost, women in the study will be followed for five years, rather than the three years that were initially required. This extension will provide us with longer-term information on adverse risks of the device, including issues that may lead women to have the device removed. We also required additional blood testing of patients enrolled in follow-up visits during the study to learn more about patients’ levels of certain inflammatory markers that can be indicators of increased inflammation. This could help us better evaluate potential immune reactions to the device and define whether these findings are associated with symptoms that patients have reported in relation to Essure. These reported symptoms include persistent pain and hypersensitivity reactions, headaches, fatigue and cognitive difficulties.

The use of nitinol in other devices has increased—particularly for cardiovascular stents, guidewires and other devices used in minimally-invasive medical procedures. This owes to the metal’s properties. Nitinol is flexible and bendable with the ability to spring back, like a Slinky, into its original shape.

Many of the symptoms reported by some patients who had Essure implanted have not been reported by patients who had other nitinol-containing devices implanted, which could be related to the location of the implants. The particular site in the body where a device is placed may contribute to the potential for the device to cause an immune/inflammatory reaction. In the next few months, we’re planning to publish draft guidance on the use of nitinol in medical devices. This new guidance will include recommendations from the FDA on what manufacturers should include in their premarket submission of a device containing nitinol, including technical testing recommendations, labeling and information on how the device is manufactured and other factors that could affect the breakdown of the material in the body.

Metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices

Three years ago, the FDA strengthened the regulation of metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices requiring that manufacturers submit premarket approval applications to keep their devices on the market. That decision was based on significant safety concerns associated with adverse biological reactions to the metal wear particles and ions generated by the metal ball rubbing the metal socket joint during everyday use. These metal particles were found to have the potential to cause damage to the surrounding bones and soft tissues (including muscle) in some patients leading to pain, device failure and the need for repeat surgery to replace the implant. Some patients also developed severe systemic conditions, including damage to their heart, kidneys and thyroid, from the metal ions entering their bloodstream and reaching distant organs.

There are currently no FDA-approved metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices marketed for use in the U.S. However, many patients still have these devices implanted in their body, and the FDA felt it was imperative that manufacturers continue to meet their obligations for completing their postmarket surveillance studies. Today, we’re sharing interim results from these studies. The results show significantly higher blood levels of metal ions (cobalt and chromium) in patients with metal-on-metal hip implants compared to those without metal implants. While that’s not unanticipated, the data also suggest that the standard blood level threshold measurement of 7.0 parts per billion (micrograms/liter) or higher for metal ions, is not optimal to determine if an implant is functioning safely. Some patients in the postmarket surveillance studies had levels higher than this with no adverse medical complications, while others had severe symptoms with lower ion levels in their blood. This suggests that there are additional factors, besides metal ion levels, that affect which patients experience adverse events from metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices.

In addition to the clinical evaluations, the postmarket surveillance studies included a detailed analysis of more than 2,000 devices from patients who elected to have their implants removed. On average, patients who had their devices removed had higher metal ion levels compared to other patients in the postmarket surveillance studies who didn’t. Also, the wear between the metal ball and metal socket was found to be higher than what was expected based on testing performed on the devices before they were allowed on the market. When considering all devices that were explanted, it appears that certain factors, including those related to the design or surgical placement of the device, may be associated with a higher wearing down of the device and elevated metal ion levels.

Based on these findings, the FDA is working with standards development organizations (such as the American Society for Testing and Materials) to develop new standards to improve how metal-on-metal total hip replacement devices are evaluated and identify additional testing protocols for new metal-on-metal devices that are submitted to the FDA for review.

Advisory panel meeting

To help us gain a broader understanding of nitinol and other metals in devices, we’re announcing today that we plan to hold an advisory committee meeting this fall to discuss metal implants and the potential risk for certain patients to have “hypersensitivity” or exaggerated immune and inflammatory reactions to these metals. We’ve been exploring the link between immune and inflammatory markers and symptoms such as pain, headaches and fatigue in patients who have these devices implanted. This advisory committee meeting is part of our ongoing effort to advance the evaluation of materials used in implantable devices.

The panel meeting will engage experts in the field to provide input on what relevant scientific information the FDA should solicit from manufacturers to be considered in both premarket review and postmarket surveillance. Importantly, we’d like to determine how to identify patients who might be at increased risk of having a hypersensitivity response before they receive a metal implant, so they can consider those risks along with the device’s benefits. An additional purpose of the meeting will be to identify gaps in current scientific knowledge to determine what studies are essential to further expand our understanding of this important public health issue, including to what extent immune/inflammatory responses to certain metals contribute to device-related adverse events and steps we can take to mitigate potential risks.

Prior to this meeting, the FDA will release a peer-reviewed white paper that summarizes the current scientific knowledge regarding different aspects of metal implants, including how the structure and function of these devices are impacted by the body’s tissues, muscles and blood supply and how the metal components dissolve and interact with immune cells.

These efforts are just a few aspects of our ongoing evaluation of the effects of materials in at-risk patients. Our goal in taking these steps is to ensure that the benefits of devices made of metal materials continue to outweigh their risks. For the vast majority of patients this is the case and will remain the case as we go through these steps. However, for certain small subsets of patients who exhibit sensitivities to select materials, we must determine what additional actions we should take to make sure they are protected and understand the unique risks they may encounter.

Animal materials in devices

We’re also making efforts to improve the safety of devices made from animal-derived materials such as additives used on device coatings or heart valves made from pig tissue. We know that animal-derived materials may provide benefits over metal or synthetic materials because they can more closely match the biophysical properties of tissues within the human body. But these materials may carry a risk of transmitting infectious disease when improperly collected, stored, or manufactured. Specifically, animal tissues can contain infectious agents known as prions, which cause neurodegenerative disorders such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or Mad Cow Disease. Yesterday, we issued final guidance on Medical Devices Containing Materials Derived from Animal Sources to provide recommendations to device manufacturers for how to minimize the potential risk of transmitting these rare but serious infectious diseases while still providing patients access to beneficial devices made from animal-derived materials.

Research efforts to better understand innovative materials

We’re also beginning to see manufacturers incorporate new types of materials in devices. CDRH’s OSEL has been conducting a wide array of research studies to learn more about the new advances in device materials. For example, our scientists are looking to better understand and characterize an innovative form of carbon called graphene, which has enormous applications in biotechnology and device development because it is lightweight, flexible, a superb conductor of electricity and is many times stronger than steel.

In anticipation of new device applications for, say, graphene-containing drug delivery systems or ultrasensitive biosensors that can be used with diagnostic tests, our scientists are working quickly to characterize and learn more about graphene’s chemical properties—both in terms of how durable it will be in medical devices and how it will interact with the body’s tissues and immune system.

OSEL has also worked on understanding how nanoparticles—tiny particles composed of just a few atoms—in medical devices interact with the immune system and whether they’re causing any toxic effects in the body. While these advances are promising, OSEL researchers are working to ensure that the benefits of the new material outweigh any risks that may come from these particles interacting with human cells.

Next steps

Modernizing the regulatory framework pertaining to the FDA’s review of medical device materials requires a multi-step approach. We’ll gather input from patients, device manufacturers, researchers and physicians to learn more about their concerns and ideas for how the FDA should proceed. Any new initiatives we implement must be rooted in putting patient safety first and based on sound science.

More closely evaluating the potential for certain materials to cause immune/inflammatory reactions in a small number of patients may improve our understanding of materials, help uncover ways to identify patients predisposed to these reactions and improve the overall safety and performance of medical devices. This is part of our continuing effort to advance opportunities for enabling modern materials to improve the performance of medical devices while also advancing our assurance of safety for these products. We look forward to providing updates about our progress and ongoing research. We believe our continuing efforts will ultimately provide patients and doctors with better access to more effective and safer medical devices.

Read More

FDA STATEMENT ON BAYER ESSURE SAFETY OVERSIGHT AFTER BAYER STOPS U.S. SALES

 

 

Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new steps to strengthen the long-term safety oversight of the Essure device following discontinuation of its U.S. sales

For Immediate Release

December 20, 2018

FDA Statement

When new safety concerns arise for particular devices, we’re committed to taking action to develop post-market information that can help patients and providers make more informed decisions and also support regulatory actions that reduce any potential risks to patients. We’ve taken a series of such steps with respect to Essure, a permanent birth control device. The product has been the focus of several important FDA safety actions. We’re announcing some additional steps today to make sure the FDA continues to evaluate the product’s long-term safety profile past its scheduled discontinuation from the U.S. market following a series of earlier regulatory actions that we took apply significant new requirements on its use. This includes the agency’s decision to take the step of making Essure a restricted device.

In July, citing the declining annual number of implantations, the manufacturer of the device, Bayer, announced that Essure will no longer be sold or distributed in the U.S. after Dec. 31, 2018. At that time, I stressed that, even when Essure is no longer sold, the FDA would remain vigilant in its oversight of the device. This includes requiring that Bayer complete the postmarket surveillance study that we ordered in February 2016. I also affirmed that we’d continue to actively communicate with patients and physicians as new information about the device becomes available or as the FDA takes additional regulatory steps.

Today, I’m providing an update on new steps to revise and strengthen the manufacturer’s postmarket study, to make sure we continue to collect long-term safety information following the discontinuation of the product to better evaluate the safety profile of the device when used in the real world.

As part of the revised protocol for the postmarket surveillance study, the FDA has worked with Bayer to see that the manufacturer implements several approved modifications to the study that we believe will strengthen the evidence collected.

First and foremost, women in the study will be followed for five years, rather than the three years that was initially required. This significant extension follows the FDA’s request that the company go beyond the three-year period provided for by law. This extension will provide us with longer-term information on adverse risks of the device, including issues that may lead women to have the device removed.

Second, we’re requiring additional blood testing of patients enrolled in follow-up visits during the study to learn more about patients’ levels of certain inflammatory markers that can be indicators of increased inflammation. This could help us better evaluate potential immune reactions to the device and whether these findings are associated with symptoms that patients have reported related to Essure.

The FDA is also requiring Bayer to continue to enroll patients who might still opt to receive Essure in advance of its full discontinuation from the U.S. market, and to continue to submit more frequent reports to the FDA on the study’s progress and results. Since FDA’s 2016 decision to order Bayer to conduct the postmarket study and then to add a boxed warning and Patient Decision Checklist to the labeling, sales of Essure declined by 70 percent. Earlier this year, the FDA decided to restrict the sale and distribution of the device to only health care providers and facilities that provide information to patients about the risks and benefits of this device and that give patients the opportunity to sign an acknowledgement of understanding before implantation. In view of this decline in sales and the manufacturer’s decision to discontinue sales and distribution at the end of this year, we recognize that Bayer is having challenges reaching the study’s initial sample size that relied on enrolling patients who were newly implanted with Essure until May 2020. We believe that this new, revised study plan will help provide more long-term information regarding complications that may be experienced by patients who have Essure, despite reduced enrollment.

For the past several years, the FDA has been monitoring the progress of an Essure post-approval study that was mandated to gather long-term data on pregnancies occurring in patients who may have received a transvaginal ultrasound in order to confirm that Essure was properly placed in a woman’s fallopian tubes and could be relied upon to prevent pregnancy. The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health conducted an  analysis of an ongoing post-approval study data to gain a fuller understanding of device removals over time; they also completed their extensive evaluation into a significant collection of medical device reports submitted in 2017 and the first half of 2018 that mentioned issues involving potential device removal to learn more about why women were choosing to have the device removed, which usually requires a surgical procedure. CDRH also spent the past several months actively evaluating more than 15,000 medical device reports submitted to FDA in 2017 through June 2018 on the Essure device. (The majority of these reports referenced an instance in which the device was removed from a patient, and most came from cases that were made available by plaintiff attorneys as part of litigation against the manufacturer Bayer.) CDRH is providing some important new information about the removals of the Essure device learned from this analysis on our website.

Based on this information, the FDA instructed Bayer to extend the postmarket surveillance study from three years to five years to capture longer term information about device removals. We believe it’s important to continue closely monitoring device removals in the postmarket surveillance study to gain greater knowledge of this issue.

Following Essure’s removal from the market, the FDA is committed to continuing to monitor women who have the device implanted. In addition to the post-market surveillance study, the agency will continue its efforts to monitor Essure’s safety and effectiveness since its approval in 2002 by reviewing the medical literature, clinical trial information, post-approval study data and medical device reports submitted to the agency. This follows previous actions the FDA has taken, including requiring Bayer to add a boxed warning to the labeling of Essure and issue a Patient Decision Checklist to help women considering Essure to be fully informed about potential risks and the sales restriction that FDA placed on the product.

I personally had the opportunity to meet with women who have been adversely affected by Essure to listen and learn about their concerns. Some of the women I spoke with developed significant medical problems that they ascribe to their use of the product. We remain committed to these women and to improving how we monitor the safety of medical devices, including those related to women’s health.

We’re also advancing new ways to solidify our monitoring systems to achieve our new goal to consistently be the first among the world’s regulatory agencies to identify and act upon safety signals related to medical devices.

As we announced when we issued our Medical Device Safety Action Plan in April, we’re working to implement an active surveillance system to help us detect device safety signals faster, including for devices related to women’s health. We’re implementing active surveillance capabilities as part of our National Evaluation System of health Technology, which will leverage a wide range of data systems that could provide real-time information on device safety signals from electronic health information, such as registries and electronic medical records. We’re also continuing our ongoing efforts to strengthen our Coordinated Registry Networks (CRN), which link different real-world data sources to generate clinical evidence about medical devices used by patients.

We’re especially focused on addressing clinical questions for device therapies that address conditions that are unique to women, such as treatment of uterine fibroids, pelvic floor disorders, female sterilization (including the Essure device) and long-acting reversible contraception. To advance these goals, the FDA partnered with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Urogynecologic Society, the National Library of Medicine and others on this effort, which is known as the Women’s Health Technologies CRN, or WHT-CRN. Once fully implemented, the WHT-CRN can be used to answer crucial questions on medical devices for women’s health to help supplement the evidence we’re gathering from postmarket studies and medical device reports. It could also help us detect safety issues with medical devices faster, enabling us to take actions — like the implementation of special controls — sooner.

We believe women who’ve been using Essure successfully to prevent pregnancy can and should continue to do so. Women who suspect the device may be related to symptoms they are experiencing, such as persistent pain, should talk to their doctor on what steps may be appropriate. Device removal has its own risks. Patients should discuss the benefits and risks of any procedure with their health care providers before deciding on the best option for them. The FDA will continue to collect and review reports of adverse events associated with device removal and is committed to continuing to provide updates on our evaluation of this data as the information is collected and we develop new findings about the device.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the most up to date information on all MDL dockets and related mass torts visit  www.masstortnexus.com and review our mass tort briefcases and professional site MDL briefcases.

To obtain our free newsletters that contain real time mass tort updates, visit www.masstortnexus.com/news and sign up for free access.

WWW.MASSTORTNEXUS.COM

 

 

Read More

VALSARTAN U.S. SUPPLIERS IN CHINA AND INDIA ON FDA RECALL RADAR: SEE FDA WARNING LETTER TO ZHEJIANG HUAHAI PHARMACEUTICAL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical 11/29/18

 

 

10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993

Via UPS                                                          Warning Letter: 320-19-04

November 29, 2018

Mr. Jun Du

Executive Vice President

Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Coastal Industrial Zone, Chuannan No. 1 Branch No. 9 

Donghai Fifth Avenue, Linhai, Taizhou Zhejiang 317016

CHINA

Dear Mr. Du:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspected your drug manufacturing facility, Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., located at Coastal Industrial Zone, Chuannan No. 1 Branch No. 9, Donghai Fifth Avenue, Linhai, Taizhou Zhejiang, from July 23 to August 3, 2018.

 This warning letter summarizes significant deviations from current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) for active pharmaceutical ingredients (API).

Because your methods, facilities, or controls for manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding do not conform to CGMP, your API are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B).

We reviewed your August 26, 2018, response in detail and acknowledge receipt of your subsequent correspondence.

During our inspection, our investigators observed specific deviations including, but not limited to, the following.

  1. Failure of your quality unit to ensure that quality-related complaints are investigated and resolved.

Valsartan API

Your firm received a complaint from a customer on June 6, 2018, after an unknown peak was detected during residual solvents testing for valsartan API manufactured at your facility. The unknown peak was identified as the probable human carcinogen N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). Your investigation (DCE-18001) determined that the presence of NDMA was caused by the convergence of three process-related factors, one factor being the use of the solvent (b)(4)). Your investigation concluded that only one valsartan manufacturing process (referred to as the (b)(4) process in your investigation) was impacted by the presence of NDMA.

However, FDA analyses of samples of your API, and finished drug product manufactured with your API, identified NDMA in multiple batches manufactured with a different process, namely the (b)(4) process, which did not use the solvent (b)(4). These data demonstrate that your investigation was inadequate and failed to resolve the control and presence of NDMA in valsartan API distributed to customers. Your investigation also failed:

  • To include other factors that may have contributed to the presence of NDMA. For example, your investigation lacked a comprehensive evaluation of all raw materials used during manufacturing, including (b)(4).
  • To assess factors that could put your API at risk for NDMA cross-contamination, including batch blending, solvent recovery and re-use, shared production lines, and cleaning procedures.
  • To evaluate the potential for other mutagenic impurities to form in your products.

Our investigators also noted other examples of your firm’s inadequate investigation of unknown peaks observed in chromatograms. For example, valsartan intermediates (b)(4) and (b)(4) failed testing for an unknown impurity (specification ≤ (b)(4)%) with results of (b)(4)% for both batches. Your action plan indicated that the impurity would be identified as part of the investigation; however, you failed to do this. In addition, no root cause was determined for the presence of the unknown impurity. You stated that you reprocessed the batches and released them for further production.

Your response states that NDMA was difficult to detect. However, if you had investigated further, you may have found indicators in your residual solvent chromatograms alerting you to the presence of NDMA. For example, you told our investigators you were aware of a peak that eluted after the (b)(4) peak in valsartan API residual solvent chromatograms where the presence of NDMA was suspected to elute. At the time of testing, you considered this unidentified peak to be noise and investigated no further. Additionally, residual solvent chromatograms for valsartan API validation batches manufactured using your (b)(4) process, with (b)(4) in 2012 ((b)(4), and (b)(4)) show at least one unidentified peak eluting after the (b)(4) peak in the area where the presence of NDMA was suspected to elute.

Your response also states that you were not the only firm to identify NDMA in valsartan API. In your case, FDA analyses of samples identified amounts of NDMA in valsartan API manufactured at your firm that were significantly higher than the NDMA levels in valsartan API manufactured by other firms. FDA has grave concerns about the potential presence of mutagenic impurities in all intermediates and API manufactured at your facility, both because of the data indicating the presence of impurities in API manufactured by multiple processes, and because of the significant inadequacies in your investigation.

In response to this letter:

  • Submit risk assessments for all APIs and intermediates manufactured at your facility for the potential presence of mutagenic impurities.
  • Provide an update on investigations and CAPA plans initiated to address the presence of NDMA and other potential mutagenic impurities in all APIs manufactured at your firm.
  • Provide a thorough, independent assessment of your overall system for investigating deviations, discrepancies, out-of-specification (OOS) results, complaints, and other failures. In addition, provide a retrospective review of all distributed batches within expiry to determine if your firm released batches that did not conform to established specifications or appropriate manufacturing standards.
  • Provide test results for all (b)(4)and intermediates for the presence of NDMA, N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA), and other potentially mutagenic impurities.

(b)(4) API

Your firm received a customer complaint on September 13, 2016, concerning (b)(4) API batches ((b)(4) and (b)(4)) that exceeded the specification for (b)(4) (≤ (b)(4)ppm). (b)(4) has been classified as a probable human carcinogen. Your customer’s test results conflicted with your (b)(4) test results, which showed the two batches meeting the specification upon release. Your complaint investigation (CC-16008) identified no clear laboratory error, and no anomalies were detected during the production of the batches. Your investigation failed to evaluate other (b)(4) API batches to determine if the presence of excess (b)(4) was an adverse trend. For example, (b)(4)batches (b)(4), and (b)(4) were OOS for (b)(4) because of production errors; however, they were not discussed in your complaint investigation.

Your response states that (b)(4) API batches (b)(4) and (b)(4) were returned, reprocessed, and released to customers in non-U.S. markets.

Your response also states that in August 2017 you implemented a new (b)(4) test method that uses a (b)(4) LC-MS/MS method, to replace the (b)(4) LC-MS method that was prone to erroneous OOS results. You failed to verify the reliability of the (b)(4) results for all (b)(4) API batches (including (b)(4) batch (b)(4)) originally released using your (b)(4) LC-MS method, which you indicated was inferior to your updated method.

In response to this letter, provide:

  • A risk assessment for all (b)(4) API batches manufactured within expiry.
  • A revised complaint handling procedure and details of any further controls your facility has implemented to ensure that all complaints are adequately documented and thoroughly investigated.
  • Procedures for accepting and reprocessing returned drugs.
  • Results of (b)(4) testing of all (b)(4)API batches released to the U.S. market using your updated (b)(4) LC-MS/MS (b)(4) test method.
  1. Failure to evaluate the potential effect that changes in the manufacturing process may have on the quality of your API.

In November 2011 you approved a valsartan API process change (PCRC – 11025) that included the use of the solvent (b)(4). Your intention was to improve the manufacturing process, increase product yield, and lower production costs. However, you failed to adequately assess the potential formation of mutagenic impurities when you implemented the new process. Specifically, you did not consider the potential for mutagenic or other toxic impurities to form from (b)(4) degradants, including the primary (b)(4) degradant, (b)(4). According to your ongoing investigation, (b)(4) is required for the probable human carcinogen NDMA to form during the valsartan API manufacturing process. NDMA was identified in valsartan API manufactured at your facility.

You also failed to evaluate the need for additional analytical methods to ensure that unanticipated impurities were appropriately detected and controlled in your valsartan API before you approved the process change. You are responsible for developing and using suitable methods to detect impurities when developing, and making changes to, your manufacturing processes. If new or higher levels of impurities are detected, you should fully evaluate the impurities and take action to ensure the drug is safe for patients.

Your response states that predicting NDMA formation during the valsartan manufacturing process required an extra dimension over current industry practice, and that that your process development study was adequate. We disagree. We remind you that common industry practice may not always be consistent with CGMP requirements and that you are responsible for the quality of drugs you produce.

Your response does not describe sufficient corrective actions to ensure that your firm has adequate change management procedures in place: (1) to thoroughly evaluate your API manufacturing processes, including changes to those processes; and (2) to detect any unsafe impurities, including potentially mutagenic impurities. For FDA’s current thinking on control of potentially mutagenic impurities, see FDA’s guidance document M7(R1) Assessment and Control of DNA Reactive (Mutagenic) Impurities in Pharmaceuticals To Limit Potential Carcinogenic Risk for approaches that FDA considers appropriate for evaluating mutagenic impurities, at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM347725.pdf.

In response to this letter, provide:

  • Detailed revised change management procedures describing how your firm will assess and control all impurities, including mutagenic impurities, in API and intermediates manufactured at your facility.
  • Detailed procedures describing how your firm establishes impurity profiles for products manufactured at your firm. These procedures should contain instructions for comparing at appropriate intervals against the impurity profile in the regulatory submission, or for comparing against historical data, to detect changes to the API resulting from modifications in raw materials, equipment operating parameters, or the production process.
  • A retrospective analysis of other API and intermediates manufactured at your firm to determine if they were adequately evaluated for anticipated and unanticipated impurities, including potentially mutagenic impurities.
     

CGMP Consultant Recommended

Based upon the nature of the deviations we identified at your firm, we strongly recommend engaging a consultant qualified to evaluate your operations and assist your firm in meeting CGMP requirements. Your use of a consultant does not relieve your firm’s obligation to comply with CGMP. Your firm’s executive management remains responsible for fully resolving all deficiencies and ensuring ongoing CGMP compliance.

 Quality Systems Guidance

 Your firm’s quality systems are inadequate. For guidance on establishing and following CGMP compliant quality systems, see FDA’s guidances: Q8(R2) Pharmaceutical Development, at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm073507.pdfQ9 Quality Risk Management, at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm073511.pdf; and Q10 Pharmaceutical Quality System, at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm073517.pdf.

 Additional API CGMP guidance

FDA considers the expectations outlined in ICH Q7 in determining whether API are manufactured in conformance with CGMP. See FDA’s guidance document Q7 Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients for guidance regarding CGMP for the manufacture of API, at https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/ucm073497.pdf.

Conclusion

Deviations cited in this letter are not intended as an all-inclusive list. You are responsible for investigating these deviations, for determining the causes, for preventing their recurrence, and for preventing other deviations.

If you are considering an action that is likely to lead to a disruption in the supply of drugs produced at your facility, FDA requests that you contact CDER’s Drug Shortages Staff immediately, at drugshortages@fda.hhs.gov, so that FDA can work with you on the most effective way to bring your operations into compliance with the law. Contacting the Drug Shortages Staff also allows you to meet any obligations you may have to report discontinuances or interruptions in your drug manufacture under 21 U.S.C. 356C(b) and allows FDA to consider, as soon as possible, what actions, if any, may be needed to avoid shortages and protect the health of patients who depend on your products.

FDA placed your firm on Import Alert 66-40 on September 28, 2018.

Until you correct all deviations completely and we confirm your compliance with CGMP, FDA may withhold approval of any new applications or supplements listing your firm as a drug manufacturer.

Failure to correct these deviations may also result in FDA continuing to refuse admission of articles manufactured at Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., located at Coastal Industrial Zone, Chuannan No. 1 Branch No. 9, Donghai Fifth Avenue, Linhai, Taizhou Zhejiang, into the United States under section 801(a)(3) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 381(a)(3). Under the same authority, articles may be subject to refusal of admission, in that the methods and controls used in their manufacture do not appear to conform to CGMP within the meaning of section 501(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act, 21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B).

After you receive this letter, respond to this office in writing within 15 working days. Specify what you have done since our inspection to correct your deviations and to prevent their recurrence. If you cannot complete corrective actions within 15 working days, state your reasons for delay and your schedule for completion.

 Send your electronic reply to CDER-OC-OMQ-Communications@fda.hhs.gov or mail your reply to:

Rory K. Geyer

Compliance Officer

U.S. Food and Drug Administration

White Oak Building 51, Room 4235

10903 New Hampshire Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20993

USA

Please identify your response with FEI 3003885745.

Sincerely,

/S/

Francis Godwin

Acting Director

Office of Manufacturing Quality

Office of Compliance

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

 

Read More

MEDICAL DEVICE IMPLANT OVERSIGHT BY FDA IS NOT HAPPENING: WHY?

WHY THE MOTTO OF “PROFITS BEFORE PATIENTS” IS STILL THE BANNER: 

HERE’S A FULL REPORT

 By Mark A. York (November 26, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) For years, medical device companies have stated that the products they are developing and placing into the marketplace are safe and helping patients in the USA and worldwide. That is often not the case and people around the world are suffering.

Medical device makers and compensated doctors have touted FDA approved implants and other devices as the surgical cure for millions of patients suffering from a wide range of pain disorders, making them one of the fastest-growing products in the $400 billion medical device industry. Companies and doctors aggressively push them as a safe antidote to the deadly opioid crisis in the U.S. and as a treatment for an aging population in need of chronic pain relief and many other afflictions.

Why Device Makers Tout FDA Approvals

Manufacturer headlines like these instill consumer confidence that medical devices are safe and effective. After all, they have the FDA’s stamp of approval, right? NO!

The reality is, the FDA seldom requires rigorous evidence that a device works well–and safely–before allowing it onto the market. Medical devices are the diverse array of non-drug products used to diagnosis and treat medical conditions, from bandages to MRI scanners to smartphone apps to artificial hips.

This low standard of evidence applies to even the highest risk devices such as those that are implanted in a person’s body. Surgical mesh, pacemakers and gastric weight loss balloons are just a few examples of devices that have had serious safety problems.

Devices are subject to weaker standards than drugs because they’re regulated under a different law. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 was intended to encourage innovation while allowing for a range of review standards based on risk, according to legal expert Richard A. Merrill. An array of corporate lobbying has since prompted Congress to ease regulations and make it easier for devices to get the FDA’s approval.

In 2011, an Institute of Medicine panel recommended that the “flawed” system be replaced, because it does not actually establish safety and effectiveness. At the time the FDA said it disagreed with the group’s recommendations.

Defective devices cleared through this system have included hip replacements that failed prematurely, surgical mesh linked to pain and bleeding and a surgical instrument that inadvertently spread uterine cancer.

FDA Does Not Do What’s Needed

Congress, FDA Poised to Loosen Oversight of Medical Devices, June 20, 2017

When makers of medical devices learn that one of their products has malfunctioned in a way that could kill or seriously injure people, they are required to file a report with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The reports are meant to alert regulators that patients may be in danger.

However, in the future, under a deal the FDA has negotiated with industry lobbyists, manufacturers could generally wait three months before reporting malfunctions, and they could report malfunctions in “summary” form, according to an FDA document.

This 2017 deal apparently means that the government and the public could receive less detailed and less timely warnings.

To see how many FDA recalls take place daily see the FDA recall database link: https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/default.htm

Spinal Cord Stimulator Failures

Jim Taft listened intently as his pain management doctor described a medical device that could change his life, it wouldn’t fix the nerve damage in his mangled right arm, but a spinal-cord stimulator would cloak his pain, making him “good as new.”

Taft’s stimulator failed soon after it was surgically implanted. After an operation to repair it, he said the device shocked him so many times that he couldn’t sleep and even fell down a flight of stairs. Today, the 45-year-old Taft is virtually paralyzed.

“I thought I would have a wonderful life,” Taft said. “But look at me.” Taft is just one of the thousands of patients who have been injured by an implanted medical device, almost always by a device that was made in the USA.

A recent global investigation has found that hundreds of thousands of unsafe medical devices have been implanted in patients around the world and device failures are considered very normal.

A recent worldwide investigation was carried out by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in coordination with the British Medical Journal and various media outlets including the Guardian newspaper and BBC Panorama.

The probe found that pacemakers, artificial knees, hips and rods to support the spinal cord are among the faulty devices that were implanted in patients and that failed. These unsafe medical devices have resulted in thousands of injuries and deaths and quite often patients are forced to undergo removal or revision surgeries.

The investigation found that many of the unsafe medical devices did not complete patient trials before their commercial launch, adding  that some of the pacemakers were implanted when the manufacturers were aware of the problems, while some devices were approved on the basis of a regulatory nod secured in other countries.

Poor regulations across countries, lenient testing standards and lack of clarity allowed these faulty medical devices to reach the market.

In the UK alone, the regulators received 62,000 “adverse incident” reports associated with medical devices between 2015 and 2018. About 1,004 of such cases even resulted in the death of patients.

In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been notified of 5.4 million ‘adverse events’ over the last ten years. Faulty devices were linked to approximately 1.7 million injuries and 83,000 deaths.

Even though these medical devices are made in the USA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had not, and still has not, deemed them good enough for Americans. The FDA has permitted sales overseas of unproven devices and products via an obscure FDA provision in which products are registered as an “export only” device, requiring far less FDA scrutiny than for devices that are sold domestically.

An example is PyroTITAN, by Intergra LifeSciences of New Jersey, among the biggest medical device companies in the world and maker of more than a dozen export-only devices with troubled track records identified as “export only” which is a U.S.-made implant for losing weight that instead led to  numerous emergency surgeries, stents that could cut into arteries and heart valves sold in Spain and Italy that, according to the FDA, caused severe infections and may have caused a five-year-old child to die. These items were found by analyzing and comparing databases in 10 countries, and a lack of international standards for identifying devices means it is difficult to know how many other troubled devices exist.

For U.S. companies, exporting medical devices is big business, valued last year at more than $41 billion. Currently about 4,600 devices are registered with the FDA as “export only” devices. Several executives for medical device makers said registering the devices is faster, less expensive and has involved less oversight than getting them approved for sale inside the U.S. The troubled devices identified by NBC News have been sold around the world. The destinations range from the Netherlands to Namibia, Chile to Canada, Japan to Germany.

Recently, NBC probed export-only devices as part of the same global project organized by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a news organization notable for its work on the Panama Papers, to examine the medical device industry. More than 250 reporters in 36 countries worked on stories that began publishing Sunday.

Worldwide US Device Exports are Often Substandard

Zimmer Biomet is one of the big medical device companies named in the investigation. The company has previously had to discontinue sales of a metal-on-metal hip implant system which was cause to flesh-rotting via metallosis poisoning. The company seems to have maintained the tried and true Big Pharma mantra of “we do what the FDA requires, therefor we are excluded from accepting responsibility for defective medical products” which is often pushed as a coverall statement by medical device makers when they are under scrutiny.

“We adhere to strict regulatory standard, and work closely with the FDA and all applicable regulatory agencies in each of our regions as part of our commitment to operating a first-rate quality management system across our global manufacturing network.

Abbott has also come under scrutiny for its Nanostim pacemaker, which has received complaints about implant battery failures and parts of the device falling off inside patients.  The company released the following statement: “In accordance with the European CE Mark approval process, the Nanostim leadless pacing system was approved based on strong performance and safety data.”

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is another one of the big medical device companies to be named in the investigation. Earlier this year, J&J agreed to work with the Indian government to offer compensation to patients who were affected by faulty hip implants.

Although there are roughly 4,000 types of medical devices in the FDA’s data, just six of them accounted for a quarter of device injury reports since 2008.

 

Spinal Cord Stimulator Misinformation:

Medical device companies and doctors tout spinal-cord stimulators to treat patients suffering from a wide range of pain disorders. But an investigation by AP found the devices rank third in injury reports to the FDA in 10 years.

But the stimulators — devices that use electrical currents to block pain signals before they reach the brain — are more dangerous than many patients know, an Associated Press investigation found. They account for the third-highest number of medical device injury reports to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, with more than 80,000 incidents flagged since 2008.

Patients report that they have been shocked or burned or have suffered spinal-cord nerve damage ranging from muscle weakness to paraplegia, FDA data shows. Among the 4,000 types of devices tracked by the FDA, only metal hip replacements and insulin pumps have logged more injury reports.

The FDA data contains more than 500 reports of people with spinal-cord stimulators who died but details are scant, making it difficult to determine if the deaths were related to the stimulator or implant surgery.

An animated look at the spinal cord stimulator, its benefits and potential problems. (AP Animation/Peter Hamlin)

Medical device manufacturers insist spinal-cord stimulators are safe — some 60,000 are implanted annually — and doctors who specialize in these surgeries say they have helped reduce pain for many of their patients.

Most of these devices have been approved by the FDA with little clinical testing and the agency’s data shows that spinal-cord stimulators have a disproportionately higher number of injuries compared to hip implants, which are far more plentiful.

The AP reported on spinal stimulators as part of a year long joint investigation of the global medical devices industry that included NBC, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and more than 50 other media partners around the world. Reporters collected and analyzed millions of medical records, recall notices and other product safety warnings, in addition to interviewing doctors, patients, researchers and company whistleblowers.

The media partners found that, across all types of medical devices, more than 1.7 million injuries and nearly 83,000 deaths were reported to the FDA over the last decade.

The investigation also found that the FDA — considered by other countries to be the gold standard in medical device oversight — puts people at risk by pushing devices through an abbreviated approval process, then responds slowly when it comes to forcing companies to correct sometimes life-threatening products.

Devices are rarely pulled from the market, even when major problems emerge, and the FDA does not disclose how many devices are implanted in the U.S. each year — critical information that could be used to calculate success and failure rates.

The FDA acknowledges its data has limitations, including mistakes, omissions and under-reporting that can make it difficult to determine whether a device directly caused an injury or death, but it rejects any suggestion of failed oversight.

“There are over 190,000 different devices on the U.S. market. We approve or clear about a dozen new or modified devices every single business day,” Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, the FDA’s medical device director said at an industry conference in May. “The few devices that get attention at any time in the press is fewer than the devices we may put on the market in a single business day. That to me doesn’t say that the system is failing. It’s remarkable that the system is working as it does.”

In response to reporters’ questions, the FDA said last week that it was taking new action to create “a more robust medical device safety net for patients through better data.” ″Unfortunately, the FDA cannot always know the full extent of the benefits and risks of a device before it reaches the market,” the agency said. In the last 50 years, the medical device industry has revolutionized treatment for some of the deadliest scourges of modern medicine, introducing devices to treat or diagnose heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

Medical device companies have “invested countless resources — both capital and human — in developing leading-edge compliance programs,” said Janet Trunzo, head of technology and regulatory affairs for AdvaMed, the industry’s main trade association.

At the same time, medical device makers also have spent billions to try to influence regulators, hospitals and doctors.

In the United States, where drug and device manufacturers are required to disclose payments to physicians, the 10 largest medical device companies paid nearly $600 million to doctors or their hospitals last year to cover consulting fees, research, travel and entertainment expenses, according to an AP and ICIJ analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. This figure doesn’t include payments from device manufacturers like Johnson & Johnson and Allergan, which also sell other products.

On top of that, lobbying records show that the top four spinal-cord stimulator manufacturers have spent more than $22 million combined since 2017 to try to influence legislation benefiting their overall business, which includes other medical devices.

Some companies have been fined for bribing physicians, illegally promoting products for unapproved uses and paying for studies that proclaim the safety and effectiveness of their products, according to the joint investigation.

In a 2016 case, Olympus Corp. of the Americas, the largest U.S. distributor of endoscopes and related medical equipment, agreed to pay $623.2 million “to resolve criminal charges and civil claims relating to a scheme to pay kickbacks to doctors and hospitals,” according to the U.S. Justice Department. Olympus said that it “agreed to make various improvements to its compliance program.”

In a case the previous year involving spinal-cord stimulators, Medtronic,Inc. agreed to pay $2.8 million to settle Justice Department claims that the company had harmed patients and defrauded federal health care programs by providing physicians “powerful” financial inducements that turned them into “salesmen” for costly procedures. Medtronic denied wrongdoing. “As a matter of policy, Medtronic does not comment on specific litigation,” the company said in a statement. “We do stand behind the safety and efficacy of our Spinal Cord Stimulators and the strong benefits this technology provides to patients, many of whom have tried all other therapy options to no benefit.”

Some doctors enthusiastically promote spinal-cord stimulators without disclosing to patients they’ve received money from medical device manufacturers. Some experts say doctors are not legally required to disclose such payments, but they have an ethical obligation to do so. Sometimes the money goes to the doctors’ hospitals, and not directly to them.

As for Taft, he said he just wanted to get better, but he has lost hope. “This is my death sentence,” Taft said, stretched out beneath his bed’s wooden headboard on which he’s carved the words “death row.”

“I’ll die here,” he said.

Why Hasn’t The FDA Learned From Past Failures?

A generation ago, tens of thousands of women were injured by the Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine device that caused life-threatening infections. Consumer advocates demanded testing and pre-market approval of medical devices to prevent deaths and injuries associated with defective products.

So in 1976, Congress passed the Medical Device Amendment, a law meant to assure Americans that devices recommended by their doctors would do good and not harm.

“Until today, the American consumer could not be sure that a medical device used by his physician, his hospital or himself was as safe and effective as it could or should be,” President Gerald Ford said when he signed the bill into law.

Charged with carrying out the law, the FDA created three classes of medical devices. High-risk products like spinal-cord stimulators are designated to be held to the most rigorous clinical testing standards. But the vast majority of devices go through a less stringent review process that provides an easy path to market for devices deemed “substantially equivalent” to products already approved for use.

As designed by Congress, that process should have been phased out. Instead, it became the standard path to market for thousands of devices, including hip replacements implanted in tens of thousands of patients that would later be recalled because metal shavings from the devices made some people sick.

The AP found that the FDA has allowed some spinal-cord stimulators to reach the market without new clinical studies, approving them largely based on results from studies of earlier spinal stimulators.

Spinal stimulators are complex devices that send electrical currents through wires placed along the spine, using a battery implanted under the skin. An external remote controls the device.

The four biggest makers of spinal-cord stimulators are Boston Scientific Corp., based in Marlborough, Massachusetts; Medtronic, with headquarters in Ireland and the U.S.; Nevro, in Redwood City, California; and Illinois-based Abbott, which entered the market after its $23.6 billion purchase of St. Jude Medical, Inc.

St. Jude’s application to go to market with its first spinal stimulator contained no original patient data and was based on clinical results from other studies, while Boston Scientific’s application for its Precision spinal-cord stimulator was based largely on older data, though it did include a small, original study of 26 patients who were tracked for as little as two weeks.

Once approved, medical device companies can use countless supplementary requests to alter their products, even when the changes are substantial.

For example, there have been only six new spinal-cord stimulator devices approved since 1984, with 835 supplemental changes to those devices given the go-ahead through the middle of this year, the AP found. Medtronic alone has been granted 394 supplemental changes to its stimulator since 1984, covering everything from altering the sterilization process to updating the design.

“It’s kind of the story of FDA’s regulation of devices, where they’re just putting stuff on the market,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, who has studied medical devices for nearly 30 years.

Medical device manufacturers have cited multiple industry-funded studies showing the effectiveness of spinal-cord stimulation in the treatment of chronic pain. Experts say treatment is considered successful if pain is reduced by at least half, but not every patient experiences that much pain reduction.

A 2016 study looking at different stimulation systems found “significant evidence” that they were “a safe, clinical and cost-effective treatment for many chronic pain conditions.”

But Zuckerman noted that the more extensive studies came after the devices were being widely used on people. “These patients are guinea pigs,” she said.

FDA said in a statement that it approves, clears or grants marketing authorization to an average of 12 devices per business day and its decisions are “based on valid scientific evidence” that the devices are safe and effective.

Dr. Walter J. Koroshetz, director at the neurological disorders and stroke division at the National Institutes of Health, said trials for medical devices like spinal-cord stimulators are generally small and industry-sponsored, with a “substantial” placebo effect.

“I don’t know of anyone who is happy with spinal-cord technology as it stands,” Koroshetz said. “I think everybody thinks it can be better.”

Why Device Makers Don’t Reveal Adverse Product Issues  

Every time Jim Taft walked into his pain management doctor’s office, he would glance at the brochures touting spinal-cord stimulators — the ones with pictures of people swimming, biking and fishing.

Inside the exam room, Taft said, his doctor told him the device had been successful for his other patients and would improve his quality of life.

On lifetime worker’s compensation after his right arm was crushed as he was hauling materials for an architectural engineering company, Taft had been seeing the doctor for five years before he decided to get a stimulator in 2014. What finally swayed him, he said, was the doctor’s plan to wean him off painkillers.

Taft said his pain management doctor praised the technology, saying stimulators had improved the quality of life for his patients. But four years later, Taft is unable to walk more than a few steps.

Taft is one of 40 patients interviewed by the AP who said they had problems with spinal-cord stimulators. The AP found them through online forums for people with medical devices. Twenty-eight of them said their spinal-cord stimulators not only failed to alleviate pain but left them worse off than before their surgeries.

Zuckerman, who has worked at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and as a senior policy adviser to then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, said no doctor wants to think they’re harming patients.

“But there’s a tremendous financial incentive to downplay, ignore or forget bad patient experiences and just focus on how happy patients are,” she said.

More than half the patients interviewed by the AP said they felt pressured to get stimulators because they feared their doctors would cut off their pain medications — the only thing helping them.

Stimulators are considered a treatment of “last resort” by insurance companies, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. That means doctors must follow a protocol before insurance will pay for the device and implantation.

Physicians must show that conservative treatments failed to help, and patients also undergo psychological assessments to evaluate the likelihood of success. They then typically undergo a trial period lasting three days to a week with thin electrodes inserted under the skin. If patients say they got relief from the external transmitter sending electrical pulses to the contacts near their spines, they have surgery to implant a permanent stimulator.

Taft said his three-day trial helped reduce his pain so, a few days before his surgery, he began preparing for a new life. He ordered lumber to refurbish a patio and deck for his wife, Renee, as thanks for her years of support.

In April 2014, Boston Scientific’s Precision stimulator was implanted in Taft by Jason Highsmith, a Charleston, South Carolina, neurosurgeon who has received $181,000 from the company over the past five years in the form of consulting fees and payments for travel and entertainment. A Boston Scientific sales representative was in the operating room — a common practice, the AP found.

Highsmith would not comment on the payments. Other doctors have defended the practice, saying they do important work that helps the companies — and ultimately patients — and deserve to be compensated for their time.

From the time Taft was cut open and the device placed inside his body, he had nothing but problems, according to hundreds of pages of medical records reviewed by the AP. The device began randomly shocking him, and the battery burned his skin.

Taft and his wife complained repeatedly, but said his doctors and a Boston Scientific representative told them that spinal-cord stimulators don’t cause the kind of problems he had.

That runs counter to Boston Scientific’s own literature, which acknowledges that spinal stimulators and the procedures to implant them carry risks, such as the leads moving, overstimulation, paralysis and infections.

That also is not reflected in the AP’s analysis of FDA injury reports, which found shocking and burning had been reported for all major models of spinal-cord stimulators. For Boston Scientific devices, infection was the most common complaint over the past decade, mentioned in more than 4,000 injury reports.

In response to questions, the company called infection “unfortunately a risk in any surgical procedure” that the company works hard to avoid. It added that the FDA’s data “shouldn’t be interpreted as a causal sign of a challenge with our device. In fact, many examples of reportable infections include those that were caused by the surgical procedure or post-operative care.”

“In our internal quality assessments, over 95 percent of the injury reports were temporary or reversible in nature,” the company added.

Taft said had he known the devices hurt so many people, he would have reconsidered getting one. A Boston Scientific sales representative tried reprogramming the device, he said, but nothing worked.

“I told them that it feels like the lead is moving up and down my spine,” Taft said. “They said, ‘It can’t move.’” But in July 2014, X-rays revealed the lead indeed had moved — two inches on one side.

Highsmith told the AP the electrode broke from “vigorous activity,” though Taft said that would not have been possible due to his condition. Taft said he was in such bad shape after his surgery that he was never able to redo the patio and deck for his wife or do anything else vigorous.

That October, Highsmith said, he operated on Taft to install a new lead, tested the battery and reinserted it.

Still, Taft’s medical records show that he continued to report numbness, tingling and pain. During a January 2015 appointment, a physician assistant wrote that the device “seemed to make his pain worse.”

The stimulator was surgically removed in August 2015. The following June, Taft got a second opinion from a clinic that specializes in spinal injuries, which said he had “significant axial and low back pain due to implantation and explantation” of the stimulator.

Highsmith said other doctors have documented severe arthritis in Taft and that, while he has not examined Taft in more than three years, it’s “likely his current condition is the result of disease progression and other factors.”

He did not answer questions about whether he informed Taft of the risks associated with stimulators.

The doctor said the overwhelming majority of his spinal-cord stimulator patients gain significant pain relief.

“Unfortunately, in spite of the major medical breakthroughs with devices like these, some patients still suffer from intractable pain,” he said.

Renee Taft, a paralegal, reached out to Boston Scientific in 2017, but said the company refused to help because her husband’s stimulator had been removed and blamed Taft for his problems, also saying he had engaged in “rigorous physical activity” after surgery.

In the letter from the company’s legal department, Boston Scientific also noted that federal law shielded manufacturers from personal liability claims involving medical devices approved by the FDA.

In response to questions from investigators, Boston Scientific again blamed Taft’s “activity level” but didn’t elaborate. The company also said other factors could contribute to his problems such as “hyperalgesia, a phenomenon associated with long-term opioid use which results in patients becoming increasingly sensitive to some stimuli.”

Since 2005, there have been 50 recalls involving spinal stimulators, averaging about four per year in the last five years. Roughly half the recalls involved stimulators made by Medtronic, the world’s largest device manufacturer, though none warned of a risk of serious injury or death.

The experience of nearly all the 40 patients interviewed by the AP reflected one common fact. Their pain was reduced during the trial but returned once their stimulators were implanted.

Experts say the answer may be a placebo effect created when expectations are built up during the trial that only the stimulator can offer relief from pain, exacerbated by patients not wanting to disappoint family members, who often have been serving as their caregivers.

“If patients know this is a last resort, a last hope, of course they will respond well,” said Dr. Michael Gofeld, a Toronto-based anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who has studied and implanted spinal-cord stimulators in both the U.S. and Canada.

By the time the trial ends, the patient is “flying high, the endorphin levels are high,” Gofeld said.

Manufacturer representatives are heavily involved during the entire process. Along with often being in the operating room during surgery in case the physician has questions, they meet with patients to program the devices in the weeks following surgery.

Most of the patients interviewed by the AP said the adjustments to their devices were performed by sales representatives, often with no doctor or nurse present. That includes one patient who was billed for programming as if the doctor was in the room, though he was not.

“People who are selling the device should not be in charge of maintenance,” Gofeld said. “It’s totally unethical.”

In a 2015 Texas case, a former Medtronic sales representative filed suit contending she was fired after complaining that the company trained employees to program neurostimulators without physicians present. She also claimed that a Medtronic supervisor snatched surgical gloves away from her when she refused to bandage a patient during a procedure, pushed her aside and then cleaned and dressed the patient’s wound. Medtronic denied the allegations, and the case was settled on undisclosed terms.

In the Justice Department case involving Medtronic, a salesman who said he earned as much as $600,000 a year selling spinal-cord stimulators claimed sales representatives encouraged physicians to perform unnecessary procedures that drove up the costs for Medicare and other federal health programs.

“While there have been a few instances where individuals or affiliates did not comply with Medtronic’s policies, we acted to remedy the situation in each case once discovered and to correct any misconduct,” the company said.

Gofeld said he believes stimulators do work, but that many of the problems usually arise when doctors don’t choose appropriate candidates. And he thinks the stimulators are used too often in the U.S.

Nevro, one of the four big manufacturers, has cited estimates that there are as many as 4,400 facilities in the U.S where spinal-stimulation devices are implanted by a variety of physicians, including neurosurgeons, psychiatrists and pain specialists.

It’s a lucrative business . Analysts say stimulators and the surgery to implant them costs between $32,000 and $50,000, with the device itself constituting $20,000 to $25,000 of that amount. If surgery is performed in a hospital, the patient usually stays overnight, and the hospital charges a facility fee for obtaining the device. Costs are typically covered by insurance.

The AP found that doctors can make more money if they perform the surgery at physician-owned outpatient surgery centers, since the doctor buys the device, marks it up and adds on the facility fee.

In Canada, where Gofeld now works, he said the surgeries are done only by those who specialize in the procedures. He said spinal-cord stimulators should be used when pain starts and not after failed back surgeries.

“By then,” he said, “it’s too late.”

When Surgeries Never Stop

While manufacturers and top FDA officials tout stimulators as a weapon in the battle against opioids, neurosurgeons like Steven Falowski are the front-line evangelists.

“Chronic pain is one of the largest health-care burdens we have in the U.S. It’s more than heart disease, cancer and diabetes combined,” Falowski said in an interview. If they’re used early enough for pain, they can prevent people from going on opium-based pain killers, said Falowski, who speaks at neuromodulation conferences and teaches other doctors how to implant stimulators.

Since 2013, device manufacturers have paid Falowski — or St. Luke’s University Health Network in Fountain Hill, Pennsylvania, where he works — nearly $863,000, including $611,000 from St. Jude or its new parent company, Abbott, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database. The payments range from consulting fees to travel and entertainment expenses.

Falowski said he has conducted research and done other work for manufacturers, adding, “The contracts with industry are with my hospital and not with me.”

St. Luke’s told the AP that it keeps the majority of the payments from device makers, but that Falowski “may receive a portion of these payments through his annual compensation.” AP’s analysis showed Abbott products were more likely than other major models to include reports of a hot or burning sensation near the site of the battery, with about 5,600 injury reports since 2008 referring to the words “heat” or “burn.”

Abbott said that many of the “adverse events” reports in the FDA’s data stemmed from a device that was voluntarily recalled in 2011. The company added that feeling a temperature increase at the implant site “is often a reality for rechargeable spinal-cord stimulation systems,” which is why the company is now concentrating on devices that do not need to be recharged.

 

Falowski said doctors do important work for medical device companies, and he has been involved in device development, education, clinical trials and research.

“You’re trying to help patients and you realize as a physician by yourself you’re not going to generate $200 million to make the next best implant for a patient and it’s going to take a company to do that,” he said. “So I think the important part in that relationship is transparency and disclosures.”

Experts interviewed by the AP said doctors are not legally required to tell their patients about financial relationships with medical device manufacturers, but that it would be the right thing to do.

“The patient should be fully informed before consenting to a procedure,” said Genevieve P. Kanter, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in internal medicine, medical ethics and health policy.

Abbott Issues Warning After Surgeries For Thousands of Patients

In October 2016, Abbott notified physicians and patients that a subset of ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) devices manufactured between January 2010 and May 2015 could potentially experience premature battery depletion due to short circuits from lithium clusters.

The potential for premature battery depletion in the affected devices is low. The new Battery Performance Alert can be used as a tool to further assist in identifying the potential for these devices to experience premature battery depletion.

It’s a voluntary recall, so patients are being told to consult with their doctors before coming in for the procedure — which thankfully consists of a simple 3-minute wireless firmware update (using a wand, according to the pamphlet) instead of anything invasive.

The FDA-approved firmware update actually includes a pair of important-sounding fixes. In addition to some enhanced security, the update also comes with a way to detect if a device’s battery drains abnormally quickly and alert the patient.

The FDA and Abbott say they haven’t had issues with any of the 50,000 firmware updates they’ve installed on devices like this so far.

Summary:

Based on historical results as well as litigation related to adverse events with medical device FDA approvals and disclosures by device makers, it would seem that the reality of the dangers related to this device and thousands of other FDA approved devices, we may never know the truth on how dangerous these products really are.

(Images and text excerpts have been taken from NBC News and Associated Press media releases) 

Read More

Essure Litigation Against Bayer Survives Preemption Challenge – Cases Remanded to Pennsylvania State Court

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Is Now The Venue for Filing “Essure” Cases

By Rosemary Pinto, Esq. Feldman & Pinto

And Mark A. York, Mass Tort Nexus

(September 27, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(MASS TORT NEXUS MEDIA) Bayer Corp. and its entities, the makers of Essure, a permanent contraceptive implant subject to thousands of injury reports and repeated safety restrictions by regulators ,said  recently that it will stop selling the device in the U.S., the only country where it remains available.

On July 23, 2018, U.S. District Senior Judge, John R. Padova of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled  that the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the cases against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., and the legal claims over the Essure contraceptive device.

The cases were originally filed in Philadelphia court but were removed by Bayer with the company claiming the removals were proper because the plaintiffs’ claims involved an interpretation of federal law, including Food and Drug Administration regulations.

The company cited a 2017 ruling by a U.S. District Court in North Carolina in another Essure case, Burrell v. Bayer, in which it found that it had federal question jurisdiction because “the labeling of FDA-approved medical devices is governed by the FDA under the MDA, and [the] state law is generally pre-empted under 21 U.S.C. Section 360k.”

But Padova instead followed the lead of courts in the Eastern District of Kentucky and the Eastern District of Missouri, finding that “Congress intended for the state courts to resolve cases such as this one, which ask whether a defendant violated state laws that parallel federal requirements applicable to Essure.”

Bayer argued that the cases were of federal concern because the Essure devices were subject to “stringent federal scrutiny” as Class III medical devices.

“We certainly agree with Bayer that Congress has a significant interest in the regulation of Class III medical devices,” Padova said. Nevertheless, Padova added, the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 “permit individuals to bring state law causes of action alleging violations of duties that parallel the federal requirements. It would be entirely inconsistent with this structure to conclude that Congress intended all such state law causes of action to be brought in federal court.”

Padova also said Bayer failed to identify any disputed federal issue, noting that “the central claims in the complaints are that Bayer violated state law and the complaints merely reference federal law to rebut any argument that their state law claims are preempted.

Feldman Pinto In Philadelphia Provides Insight

Essure Litigation Survives Preemption Challenge, Cases Remanded to State Court

Essure is a birth control device composed of two metal coils implanted in a patient’s fallopian tubes. Women injured by the device have filed more than 16,000 lawsuits against Bayer Healthcare, alleging, among other things, that Bayer failed to provide adequate warnings of severe Essure complications suffered by plaintiffs from device breakage, migration, and / or expulsion. Complications include perforation of fallopian tubes, uteri, rectums, colons, and other organs; severe and chronic pelvic or abdominal pain; and autoimmune diseases.

Essure Claims for Negligent Misrepresentation and Negligent Failure to Warn Survive Preemption Challenge

All of the approximately 16,000 Essure lawsuits in state and federal court exist as individual legal actions rather than class actions or multidistrict litigation. Five such cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defendants filed motions in all five cases, requesting dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims on the basis of express or implied preemption, failure to state a plausible claim, or failure to plead fraud with particularity.

In March 2016, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims of negligent misrepresentation and negligent failure to warn, holding that the state law claims set forth plausible claims for relief and were not preempted by federal law.

Consolidated Essure Cases Remanded to State Court

In July 2018, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded 19 Essure injury cases to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The district court found that it lacked both diversity of citizenship and federal question subject-matter jurisdiction over the consolidated individual actions and remanded them to state court.

 Essure Statute of Limitations

Defendants in Essure personal injury cases may argue that the statute of limitations period in all Essure cases should begin on November 18, 2016, the date the FDA approved a black box warning (its strongest warning level) for Essure. In reality, the dates triggering Essure limitation periods will vary. The beginning of each plaintiff’s limitation period will depend on the plaintiff’s individual claims and state law applicable to the particular case.

Bayer Stops USA Sales

Bayer announced in June 2018 that it would voluntarily discontinue U.S. sales of Essure by the end of this year “for business reasons” but earlier this month affirmed the safety profile of the device. Last week, Bayer took Netflix to task over the accuracy of its medical device documentary “The Bleeding Edge.” The tide was turning for Bayer at that point, sales were already down 70% after the 2016 FDA warning and the public became aware of the risks of using Essure.

Bayer received FDA approval to sell Essure in 2002 and promoted it as a quick and easy permanent solution to unplanned pregnancies. Essure consists of two thin-as-spaghetti nickel-titanium coils inserted into the fallopian tubes, where they spur the growth of scar tissue that blocks sperm from fertilizing a woman’s eggs.

Because of the reported complaints, the FDA added its most serious warning to the device in 2016 and ordered the company to conduct a 2,000-patient study. FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said Friday, the agency would work with Bayer to continue the study, but noted “Bayer will not be able to meet its expected enrollment numbers” for new patients. The study was designed to follow patients for three years to better assess complications.

Gottlieb said the FDA will continue to monitor adverse events reported to its database after Essure is removed from the market.  He stated “I also want to reassure women who’ve been using Essure successfully to prevent pregnancy that they can continue to do so,” and added “Those who think it’s causing problems, such as persistent pain, should consult with their doctors,” with Gottlieb further noting that device removal “has its own risks.”

Essure’s original label warned that the device’s nickel can result in allergic reactions. Its current labeling lists hives, rash, swelling and itching as possible reactions.

But many women have attributed other problems to the implant, including mood disorders, weight gain, hair loss and headaches. Those problems are listed in the current FDA labeling for the device, with the qualifier: “It is unknown if these symptoms are related to Essure or other causes.”

Informational material Bayer supplied to doctors and patients lists potential problems and states the devices are meant to be permanent. It also says removal may require complicated surgery, including a hysterectomy, that might not be covered by insurance.

Non-Profit Weighs In

Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, said Essure is among medical devices approved without “clear evidence of safety or effectiveness. As a result, when thousands of women reported serious complications from Essure, there was no unbiased long-term research to refute or confirm those reports” she also stated, “If patients had been listened to when the first clinical trials were conducted on Essure, better research would have been conducted to determine exactly how safe and effective Essure is.”

 Feldman & Pinto is Representing Plaintiffs in Essure Litigation

The Philadelphia personal injury firm of Feldman & Pinto concentrates its practice in plaintiffs’ drug and medical device injury litigation. Each of the firm’s attorneys has more than 20 years’ experience trying personal injury and wrongful death cases in state and federal court. Feldman & Pinto currently represents plaintiffs in approximately 20 Essure injury cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.  Attorney Rosemary Pinto can be contacted at rpinto@feldmanpinto.com.

To follow mass torts and multi-district litigation sign-up for the  Mass Tort Nexus “Free Newsletters” at www.masstortnexus.com/news

For real time case updates and court records on all mass torts visit the Mass Tort Nexus Professional Site at www.masstortnexus.com

 

Read More

Zostavax MDL 2848 (Shingles Vaccine) Consolidated In USDC ED Pennsylvania

Zostavax MDL 2848 Puts Merck Back on the MDL Hotseat

By Mark A. York (August 14, 2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The JPML has created the Zostavax MDL 2848 and assigned the lawsuits filed related to Merck’s shingles vaccine to the United States District Court of Pennsylvania and Judge Harvey Bartle III. See Mass Tort Nexus Zostavax brief case: ZOSTAVAX-(Zoster-Vaccine-Live)-MDL-2848-USDC-Eastern-District-of-Pennsylvania.

Shingles is a rash on the side of the face or body, usually affecting persons over 50. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Zostavax as a shingles vaccine in 2006.

The August 2, 2018  order by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidates Zostavax MDL 2848 in the US District Court of Pennsylvania (Eastern District) in front of U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle, who has been hearing one of the initial Zostavax cases filed in  016. The lawsuits, filed in courts across the country including, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Wisconsin and Massachusetts, allege that Merck failed to warn that the virus in the vaccine caused shingles, brain damage and death, among other things.

In a move not often seen, defense counsel for Merck had moved for an MDL assigned to Judge Bartle in Pennsylvania or U.S. District Judge James Moody of the Middle District of Florida.

“Issues concerning the design, testing, manufacture, regulatory approval, labeling, and marketing of Zostavax are common to all actions,” wrote the JPML chairwoman, Sarah Vance. “Seven actions are pending in this district, and they are the earliest filed and most advanced actions in this litigation.”

Lead Counsel Comments

“My cases pending before Judge Bartle are the most advanced in the Zostavax litigation,” said Mark Sadaka of The Law Offices of Sadaka Associates in Englewood, New Jersey, a plaintiffs lawyer who supported sending the cases to Bartle. “Merck has already produced millions of pages of documents in my cases in the Easter District of Pennsylvania. Judge Bartle has already decided two summary judgment motions. I look forward to working together with other plaintiffs counsel to finally move our cases to trial.”

Other plaintiffs lawyers had formally opposed creation of an MDL.

Marc J. Bern & Partners in New York, a firm with by far the most individual plaintiffs in the country—over 5,000 Zostavax clients stated “we will be looking to be leaders in this MDL” and “certainly, Judge Bartle is a judge with long experience, has handled successfully other MDL’s” said name partner Marc Bern.

Merck Previously Admits Shingles Vaccine Can Cause Eye Damage and Shingles

Two important FDA approved changes to the warning label of Merck Pharmaceutical’s shingles vaccine, Zostavax, have been made since the controversial drug was introduced in 2006.  The first was in August 2014, when, in addition to potentially causing chickenpox, another side effect was added: shingles! That’s right. The vaccine that had been – and continues to be — aggressively marketed to prevent seniors from contracting this excruciating condition was found to actually cause shingles in some individuals.

The FDA approved a label change to warn those who prescribe the Zostavax vaccine of another potential side effect: “Eye Disorders: necrotizing retinitis.”

According to the authors of a Health Sciences Institute (HSI) article in January, 2016, “UCLA researchers found that only one in 175 people who get the vaccine will be able to dodge a shingles flare-up.”  While Merck claims Zostavax is 50% effective, in the placebo group, 3.3 percent of the study participants developed shingles, compared to 1.6 percent in the vaccine group. So, while that is a 50% difference, the real, absolute risk reduction is just 1.7 percentage points.

The case criteria generally include the following injurie:

  • Autoimmune disorders, including Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, Meniere’s Disease
  • Bell’s Palsy (facial paralysis)
  • Cardiovascular event
  • Congestive heart failure
  • Death
  • Hearing loss
  • Herpetic Neuralgia (disorder in the nerves)
  • Myelitis (spinal cord inflammation)
  • Pneumonia
  • Postherpetic neuralgia, or PHN (pain continuing after shingles blister subside)
  • Serious neurological diseases or disorders, including brain inflammation (encephalitis)
  • Stroke
  • Vasculitis
  • Vision problems, including blindness, eye infections, retinal damage, acute retinal necrosis

The JPML was aware of certain issues related to creation of MDL 2858, may delay cases for some plaintiffs, many of whom are older, but coordination of the  litigation would help resolve all the cases, “even if some parties might experience inconvenience or delay.”

The JPML order does not apply to lawsuits brought on behalf of 300 plaintiffs in California state court and 800 plaintiffs in New Jersey state court.

One of the lawsuits filed by female plaintiff Joria Bentley from Nevada, claims she suffered high blood pressure, an eye injury and other side effects from Merck & Co.’s Zostavax shingles vaccine in Zostavax litigation filed in the Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas. Ms. Bentley claims in her complaint that the patient information sheet, label and prescribing information that accompanied the vaccine did not provide any warning of the risk of viral infection and cites to the many instances of adverse events and other reports on medical issues caused by Zostavax.

Patients who received the injections are filing product liability lawsuits against Merck, alleging the company produced and sold an “unreasonably dangerous vaccine” that caused serious injuries after vaccination. Hailing from a range of states including Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Michigan and Wisconsin, the plaintiffs filed their suit in Merck’s home state of New Jersey. Instead of preventing shingles, Zostavax caused the plaintiffs to “contract a persistent strain of herpes zoster,” according to the suit, resulting in painful outbreaks, hospital visits and post-herpetic neuralgia in two cases.

The common allegations in all complaints are negligence, defective design, failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation involving risk of physical harm and unjust enrichment.

“Merck knew, or should have known, that its product caused viral infection, and was therefore not safe for administration to consumers,” the suits claim. There are “thousands of complaints” yet to be filed according to one of the lead plaintiff attorneys, adding “I think Merck has failed terribly to warn about the very serious side effects and the failure of the vaccine to do what they claim it does” as Merck continues to profit from

National Vaccine Information Center

NVIC provides links and resources such as the manufacturer product information inserts for Zostavax and shingles.

What is Shingles?

  • This information is for educational purposes only and is not intended as medical advice.

What is Zostavax?

Zostavax is a vaccine made by pharmaceutical giant Merck, and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2006. It was the only approved shingles vaccine in the United States until late 2017, which allowed the company to earn as much as $749 million in sales from the vaccine in 2016, according to reports.

This vaccine is designed to reduce the risk of getting herpes zoster — a painful and debilitating condition commonly known as “shingles” — in individuals ages 50 years and older, who are at increased risk of developing the virus. Zostavax is typically recommended for people aged 60 years and older by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and doctors commonly give the vaccine in a one-dose shot.

Zostavax differs from some vaccines in that it contains a live, but weakened form of the herpes zoster virus (this is officially referred to as a “live, attenuated virus”). People with weakened immune systems cannot receive these types of vaccines.

 

Read More