Tag: FDA

FDA (Food and Drug Adminsitration) Releases Final Electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) Rule and Deadline for Compliance

MintzLogo2010_Black

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced and is promulgating today the Final Rule on Electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR). Originally proposed in 2009, the rule is now final and a deadline for compliance has been identified. The rule impacts device manufacturers and importers and mandates electronic submission of individual medical device adverse event reports. User facilities may continue to submit only written reports.

As of August 14, 2015, postmarket medical device adverse event reports by manufacturers and importers must be submitted only electronically to the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health via the Electronic Submissions Gateway (ESG). The ESG is used for all forms of electronic filing to the FDA; information specific to medical device submissions is available here. Guidance about the eMDR is available here.

It is recommended you review your current system for submitting reports, and if you are not already utilizing the ESG for all reporting, develop a plan now for integrating the electronic process into your operations.

Article by:

Of:

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Declines Courts’ Requests to Define “Natural” with respect to GMO (Genetically-Modified Organisms) Foods

Barnes Burgandy Logo

The FDA recently issued a letter to three federal district court judges declining the courts’ requests to adopt a definition of “natural” or to state whether the terms “natural” or “all natural” can be used to refer to foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to help resolve pending consumer class actions over the term. The FDA cited three reasons for its decision not to define the term(s): (1) it would prefer to use a public, administrative process than to define the term in the context of private litigation; (2) the definition implicates other agencies, most notably, the USDA; and, (3) the FDA has limited resources and other matters currently take priority.

As noted in our August 2013 Alert on the issue, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of theNorthern District of California started the trend in Cox v. Gruma Corp., a case in which the plaintiff alleges that Gruma’s use of “all natural” on its tortilla shells violates various consumer protection laws because they contain genetically-modified corn. In Van Atta v. General Mills, pending in Colorado and involving GMOs in granola products, a magistrate judge agreed with Judge Rogers and recommended a stay of proceedings in the case pending the FDA’s response to Judge Rogers’s request. Most recently, in Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., also pending in the Northern District of California and involving GMOs in various soups, a different judge also stayed the case pending the FDA’s response.

These cases are potentially quite important because there are many pending consumer class actions, particularly in California, over whether the use of some variant of the term “all natural” is proper in light of one or more ingredients in the food at issue. Indeed, some quip that food labeling litigation has replaced tobacco and asbestos as the favorite category of suit for the plaintiffs’ bar. Thus, the FDA’s response to the request by these courts, and the courts’ further actions based on the response, could resolve or guide the resolution of many of these cases.

In a related development, the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association has recently filed a citizen’s petition asking FDA to state that GMO foods may be labeled “natural.” The FDA alluded to the possible filing of this petition in its letter, but did not state whether it is willing to take up the issue using that procedure, which does allow for public comment.

A copy of the FDA’s letter can be found here.

Article by:

Of:

Barnes & Thornburg LLP

A Short-Lived Victory for Generic Drug Manufacturers?

Sheppard Mullin 2012

On June 24, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. Inc. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. ____ (2013), finding that design-defect claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted where federal law prohibits an action required by state law. The Supreme Court had previously held in Pliva v. Mensing, 564 U.S. ____ (2011) that failure to warn claims against generic drug manufacturers are pre-empted by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act since generic drug makers must copy innovator drug labeling precisely in order to obtain approval of their products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). The Court in Mutual rejected the argument of lower courts that the generic manufacturer could comply with both federal and state law by choosing not to make and distribute the product at all.

The case in question involved the drug sulindac, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug product marketed by the innovator as Clinoril®. The plaintiff in the case had been prescribed sulindac for treatment of shoulder pain. She subsequently developed a case of toxic epidermal necrolysis following taking an FDA approved generic product equivalent to Clinoril®, which resulted in significant and permanent disability (including blindness) and disfigurement. Subsequent to the event, the FDA required a more specific warning as to this possible side effect on sulindac products. A jury found the generic manufacturer liable under a theory that there was a design defect with the product, and the First Circuit affirmed, holding that the generic manufacturer could have complied with both federal and state law by not manufacturing and distributing the product. This was the method by which the lower courts overcame prior precedent that a state law may be impliedly pre-empted when it is not possible to comply with both federal and state law.

The Supreme Court in Mutual noted that the generic manufacturer could not comply with the state law, since federal law requires that the active ingredient, the amount of the active ingredient, the dosage form, and the labeling had to be identical to the innovator product. In this case, it was not possible to redesign the product, and the only way, under New Hampshire law, to remedy the design defect would have been to strengthen the product’s warnings. That too could not be done, as FDA rules require the labeling of the generic to be identical to that of the innovator. The Court ruled that in such a case the state law is without effect, and relevant New Hampshire warning-based design defect cause of action was pre-empted with respect to FDA-approved generic drugs sold in interstate commerce.

The scope of the Mutual decision may be limited to those states where design-defect claims allow for a risk-utility approach such as that the New Hampshire requires. The New Hampshire standard requires, among other things in determining whether there is a valid cause of action for a design defect, a determination as to whether there is a possible warning to avoid unreasonable risk of harm from the design defect and the efficacy of such warning. So not every design-defect claim may be pre-empted, depending on each state’s laws are interpreted. But given the Court’s reasoning, even state laws that do not take into effect the presence of and efficacy of a warning, may be pre-empted, as the generic must copy the formula of the innovator in all respects, except for the inactive ingredients in the product. (It should be noted that generics of some dosage forms – ophthalmic products and injectable products – must, in most cases, contain the same inactive ingredients as in the innovator product in the same amounts).

Furthermore, the FDA may amend its rules to permit ANDA holders to make changes in labeling. See “FDA Rule Could Open Generic Drug Makers to Suits,” The New York Times, Business, July 4, 2013, at B2. As stated in the posting on the OMB website (RIN 0910-A694):

Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations regarding new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and biologics license applications (BLAs) to revise and clarify procedures for changes to the labeling of an approved drug to reflect certain types of newly acquired information in advance of FDA’s review of such change. The proposed rule would describe the process by which information regarding a “changes being effected” (CBE) labeling supplement submitted by an NDA or ANDA holder would be made publicly available during FDA’s review of the labeling change. The proposed rule also would clarify requirements for the NDA holder for the reference listed drug and all ANDA holders to submit conforming labeling revisions after FDA has taken an action on the NDA and/or ANDA holder’s CBE labeling supplement. These proposed revisions to FDA’s regulations would create parity between NDA holders and ANDA holders with respect to submission of CBE labeling supplements.

The expected date for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is September 2013. It could, of course, take FDA quite some time to propose a rule, and put it into effect, given the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. And Congressional action is also a possibility.

For the present, however, generic drug manufacturers appear to be shielded from liability under the doctrine of pre-emption from most, if not all, failure to warn and design defect claims under state law. Whether that victory is short-lived or not remains to be seen.

Article By:

 of

FDA Discloses Method for Classifying Food Facilities as "High Risk" Under FSMA

The National Law Review published an article regarding FDA High Risk Food Facilities Classification Methods written by Lynn C. Tyler, M.S., Nicolette R. Hudson and Hae Park-Suk of Barnes & Thornburg LLP:

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), signed by President Obama in January 2011, requires FDA to inspect food facilities on different time tables depending on whether a facility is classified as “high risk” or not. High-risk facilities must be inspected at least once within the first five years after the enactment of the FSMA and once every three years thereafter. Non-high risk facilities must be inspected at least once within the first seven years after the enactment of the FSMA and once every five years thereafter.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently disclosed the method it intends to follow to classify food facilities as high risk or non-high risk under the FSMA. The agency first noted that the FSMA set forth six risk factors to be considered in making this determination:

  • The known safety risks of the food manufactured, processed, packed or held at the facility
  • The compliance history of the facility
  • The facility’s hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls (HARBPC)
  • Whether the food at the facility meets the criteria for priority to detect intentional adulteration in imported food
  • Whether the food at the facility has received certain certifications
  • Other criteria identified by Health and Human Services

FDA then noted that for FY 2011-13 the classification decision will be based primarily on the first two factors and according to the following algorithms:

  • If a facility manufactures food categories associated with foodborne outbreaks AND class I recalls (reasonable probability of serious adverse health consequences or death), it is high risk
  • If a facility manufactures food categories associated with foodborne outbreaks OR class I recalls AND it has not been inspected within the last five years, it is high risk
  • Facilities with a checkered compliance history (three or more inspections resulting in Voluntary Action Indicated findings or one or more resulting in Official Action Indicated findings within the last five years) are high risk

FDA stated that it plans to modify and adjust these criteria in the future as it develops data on some of the FSMA criteria and for other reasons. It also reserved the right to inspect a facility more frequently when necessary in its judgment.

© 2012 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP