- Hospitals to put doctors‘ relationships with pharmaceutical companies under the microscope (The Denver Post). Of course, they have been saying this for years. But I have never seen anyone pull out this microscope. Five years from now, I will link to a similar article suggesting the dawn of a new era. Hopefully, they will be efficient with their time and just cut and paste this article.
- Aggressive drug marketing and resultant prescribing causes harm to patients (Emax health). Aggressive drug marketing is not good for patients. Another “haven’t we seen this before?” study.
- Research and Markets: Allergan – SWOT Framework Analysis (Business Wire)
- Ask Not For Whom the Drug Tolls (Intermex Financial). “If Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer were in a school in Massachusetts today, they’d be drugged with Ritalin, according to many psychiatrists and other experts.” I guess the question is whether that would be a bad thing. I’m not sure one way or the other. (Using the word “drugged” certainly baits the answer.) I could probably offer more insight if I had read Huck Finn instead of the Cliff Notes. They should have put a warning about this in ALL CAPS.
These runaway juries are unreal. They are constantly finding in favor of plaintiffs who are essentially faking injuries instead of expressing gratitude for the life-altering medications pharmaceutical companies make. Abbott Laboratories is now fighting one of these runaway verdicts on appeal after a jury awarded the plaintiff $1.67 billion.
Oh, wait. The Plaintiff was not claiming to be injured. The Plaintiff was pharmaceutical titan Johnson & Johnson who was awarded $1.67 billion for patent infringement regarding the arthritis drug Humira which, ironically is under attack for the side effects it causes and now has a black box warning.
I suggest this defense for Abbott. The FDA approved Humira. If the FDA thought it infringed on a patent, it would have said so. Patent infringement preemption.
Abbott has recalled its Similac baby formula after reports of beetles being found in the product were confirmed. Millions of containers of the baby formula are involved in the recall. Abbott claims that 99.8% of the baby formula tested was negative for beetle contamination.
Since we first posted on this earlier today, our lawyers have received many inquiries from parents whose children have taken this recalled Similac baby formula. I do not think this incident, however regrettable, will lead to viable lawsuits and our law firm will not be handling these cases.
The good news is that apparently drinking the recalled formula – anyway – will not cause serious injury. The FDA has said that affected children may be uncomfortable and it may irritate the gastrointestinal tract, causing infants to lose their appetite. But ingesting the recalled formula should not cause any long-term effects. Would I still be nervous if it were my child? Of course.
Until now, online social networking has been treated mostly as a plaything for some pharmaceutical manufacturers. They will post a few updates on Twitter, maybe start a Facebook page or post a YouTube video or two, but I have seen little indication that the companies have really bought in, much less that they “get it” (though, some like AstraZeneca may play it safe while the FDA works out the regulation aspect).
Eye on FDA has a good summary of what’s happened to get us to this point. Initially, the FDA was more concerned with the content of pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers’ messages. However, last year the FDA realized that there are only so many contraindications you can fit in 140 characters. So, in September 2009, they took the proactive step of setting a meeting (which BigPharma interestingly did not attend) and encouraging comments (open through last month). The hope is that they will be able to draft some sort of guidelines, so everyone knows where the line is.