Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label FDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FDA. Show all posts

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Class I Recall: Medtronic's Worldwide Voluntary Field Action on Guidewires

Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE: MDT) announced today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified the company's recently initiated voluntary field action related to certain guidewires as a Class I recall.
Based on an internal investigation following a limited number of complaints, including one patient injury, Medtronic began notifying hospitals and distributors worldwide the week of Oct. 21 that some models of its guidewires from recent lots have the potential for the coating on their surface to delaminate and detach. The notification requested that all potentially affected units be quarantined immediately and returned to the company as soon as possible for credit and replacement.
Medtronic has also taken the necessary steps to prevent future shipments of the recalled products and notified regulatory agencies around the world as appropriate.
The FDA defines a Class I recall as a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that use of, or exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
The guidewires covered by this recall are designed to facilitate percutaneous coronary interventions or the placement of left ventricular leads for cardiac rhythm devices. They include specific lots from the following eight product lines that were manufactured after mid-April 2013:
  • Cougar nitinol workhorse guidewire
  • Cougar steerable guidewire
  • Zinger stainless steel workhorse guidewire
  • Zinger steerable guidewire
  • Thunder extra-support guidewire
  • Thunder steerable guidewire
  • ProVia crossing guidewire
  • Attain Hybrid guide wire
Additional information about the recall, including the lot numbers of affected product, is accessible through the Medtronic website – specifically, http://www.medtronic.com/for-healthcare-professionals/index.htm.
Observations and consequences of the coating issue related to these guidewires should be reported to Medtronic in the United States by calling +1-877-526-7890 on weekdays from 8am to 5pm U.S. Central Time.
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products may be reported to the FDA:
ABOUT MEDTRONIC
Medtronic, Inc. (www.medtronic.com), headquartered in Minneapolis, is the global leader in medical technology – alleviating pain, restoring health and extending life for millions of people around the world.
Any forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties such as those described in Medtronic's periodic reports on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Actual results may differ materially from anticipated results.
….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Friday, November 15, 2013

Expediting Drug Development — The FDA's New “Breakthrough Therapy” Designation

Today's post was shared by NEJM and comes from www.nejm.org


Many people with serious or life-threatening illnesses for which there are no satisfactory treatments are understandably eager to gain access to new therapies and are willing to trade off greater certainty about a drug's performance for speed of access. 

Because the typical clinical drug-development program takes about 7 years, during which a substantial body of safety and efficacy data is generated, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has long-standing expedited pathways available for drugs being studied for such illnesses. However, many patients and their advocates continue to believe that clinical development is sometimes prolonged beyond what is necessary. 

During the congressional considerations leading up to passage of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), a variety of provisions related to this theme were put on the table. 

When the bill was enacted, two modifications of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act addressed the issue of drug development for serious illnesses: a new “breakthrough therapy” designation for investigational drugs and expansion of the statute regarding accelerated approval

The breakthrough-therapy designation has since been introduced into the FDA portfolio of expedited programs for serious conditions....
Perspective
Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H., Jun Li, J.D., Ph.D., Stephanie Shapley, M.B.A., Melissa Robb, R.N., and Janet Woodcock, M.D.
N Engl J Med 2013; 369:1877-1880November 14, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1311439
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

FDA Proposes Letting Generic-Drug Makers Change Labels

Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from online.wsj.com

The Food and Drug Administration proposed allowing generic drug companies to change drug labels after getting reports of bad reactions in patients, a step that could open the generic industry up to greater potential legal liability.
In 2011 and again this year, the Supreme Court issued rulings that shielded generic drug makers from consumer personal-injury lawsuits, even though the justices have allowed similar product-liability claims against makers of branded drugs.
The step Friday by the FDA means that generic companies—which sell about 84% of the prescription drugs by volume in the U.S.—would have the same ability to change their labels as brand companies. The FDA would review any proposed changes, as it already does with changes to branded-drug labels.
"Our effort is to keep all the labels the same, and to level the playing field," said Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's center for drug evaluation and research. The proposal, she said, "would change current procedures, where only the brand companies can unilaterally put certain safety information in the label."
The Generic Pharmaceutical Association reacted cautiously, saying it is concerned that multiple labels on the same drug "could drive up costs…and should be approached very carefully."
Some of the leading makers of generic drugs include Hospira Inc., HSP +0.55%Hospira Inc.U.S.: NYSE$38.74 +0.21+0.55% Nov. 12, 2013 4:00 pm Volume (Delayed 15m) : 2.36MAFTER HOURS$38.58 -0.16-0.43% Nov. 12, 2013...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Johnson & Johnson to Pay More Than $2.2 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigatio

Today's post is shared from justice.gov

Allegations Include Off-label Marketing and Kickbacks to Doctors and Pharmacists\Global health care giant Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and its subsidiaries will pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve criminal and civil liability arising from allegations relating to the prescription drugs Risperdal, Invega and Natrecor, including promotion for uses not approved as safe and effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and payment of kickbacks to physicians and to the nation’s largest long-term care pharmacy provider. The global resolution is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in U.S. history, including criminal fines and forfeiture totaling $485 million and civil settlements with the federal government and states totaling $1.72 billion.

“The conduct at issue in this case jeopardized the health and safety of patients and damaged the public trust,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “This multibillion-dollar resolution demonstrates the Justice Department’s firm commitment to preventing and combating all forms of health care fraud. And it proves our determination to hold accountable any corporation that breaks the law and enriches its bottom line at the expense of the American people.”

The resolution includes criminal fines and forfeiture for violations of the law and civil settlements based on the False Claims Act arising out of multiple investigations of the company and its subsidiaries.

Friday, November 1, 2013

As Robot-Assisted Surgery Expands, Are Patients And Providers Getting Enough Information?

Today's post is shared from kaiserhealthnews.org.

The use of robotic surgical systems is expanding rapidly, but hospitals, patients and regulators may not be getting enough information to determine whether the high tech approach is worth its cost.

Problems resulting from surgery using robotic equipment—including deaths—have been reported late, inaccurately or not at all to the Food and Drug Administration, according to one study.
The study, published in the Journal for Healthcare Quality earlier this year, focused on incidents involving Intuitive Surgical’s da Vinci Robotic Surgical System over nearly 12 years, scrubbing through several data bases to find troubled outcomes. Researchers found 245 incidents reported to the FDA, including 71 deaths and 174 nonfatal injuries. But they also found eight cases in which reporting fell short, including five cases in which no FDA report was filed at all.

The FDA assesses and approves products based on reported device-related complications. If a medical device malfunctions, hospitals are required to report the incident to the manufacturer, which then reports it to the agency. The FDA, in turn, creates a report for its Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database.

The use of surgical robots has grown rapidly since it was first approved for laparoscopic surgery (a type of surgery that uses smaller incisions than in traditional surgery) by the FDA in 2000. Between 2007 and 2011 the number of da Vinci systems installed increased by 75 percent in the United...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Leading Coal Industry Law Firm Withheld Evidence of Black Lung Disease

Today's post was shared by FairWarning and comes from www.fairwarning.org

A miner’s struggle for benefits due to black lung disease spotlights aggressive tactics by a mining company law firmJackson Kelly recently was named by U.S. News & World Report as the nation’s top firm in mining law. But its actions are sometimes unethical, according to current and former judges, lawyers and state disciplinary officials. As a result, sick and dying miners have been denied benefits and affordable medical care. The firm, documents show, over the years has withheld unfavorable evidence and shaped the opinions of doctors reviewing miners’ medical claims by providing the physicians only what the lawyers wanted them to see. In a pending case involving a West Virginia miner named Gary Fox, Jackson Kelly was found to have withheld pathology reports from two doctors who concluded that Fox likely had black lung. The Center for Public Integrity - See more at: http://www.fairwarning.org/2013/10/68752/#sthash.lbQd8rOJ.dpuf
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

F.D.A. Shift on Painkillers Was Years in the Making

Narcotic pain killers have been the subject of concern and regulation by employers' and their insurance carriers nationally. The evolution of the FDA proposed action to regulate is revealed in today's post is shared from the NYTimes.com

When Heather Dougherty heard the news last week that the Food and Drug Administration had recommended tightening how doctors prescribed the most commonly used narcotic painkillers, she was overjoyed. Fourteen years earlier, her father, Dr. Ronald J. Dougherty, had filed a formal petition urging federal officials to crack down on the drugs.

Dr. Dougherty told officials in 1999 that more of the patients turning up at his clinic near Syracuse were addicted to legal narcotics like Vicodin and Lortab that contain the drug hydrocodone than to illegal narcotics like heroin.

Since then, narcotic painkillers, or opioids, have become the most frequently prescribed drugs in the United States and have set off a wave of misuse, abuse and addiction. Experts estimate that more than 100,000 people have died in the last decade from overdoses involving the drugs. For his part, Dr. Dougherty, who foresaw the problem, retired in 2007 and is now 81 and living in a nursing home.
“Too many lives have been ruined,” his daughter said.

The story behind the F.D.A.’s turnaround on the pain pills, last Thursday, involved a rare victory by lawmakers from states hard hit by prescription drug abuse over well-financed lobbyists for business and...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, October 24, 2013

FDA Proposes Changes in Pain Medication Prescriptions

The US FDA has announced proposed changes will be forthcoming in labeling for pain relief medication:
Consumers and health care professionals will soon find updated labeling for extended-release and long-acting opioid pain relievers to help ensure their safe and appropriate use.
"In addition to requiring new labeling on these prescription medications, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is also requiring manufacturers to study certain known serious risks when these drugs are used long-term.
"The new labeling requirements and other actions are intended to help prescribers and patients make better decisions about who benefits from the use of these medications.

They also are meant to reduce problems associated with their use," says Douglas Throckmorton, M.D., deputy director of regulatory programs in FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "Altogether, the actions we're now announcing are part of FDA's efforts to make opioids as safe as possible for those who need them," Throckmorton adds.
"He noted that the actions come after careful analysis of new safety information, including reviews of medical literature, and consideration of input from patients, experts and many other interested parties.

Tuesday, September 24, 2013

Use Only as Directed

Today's post was shared by WCBlog and comes from www.propublica.org


During the last decade, more than 1,500 Americans dieda fter accidentally taking too much of a drug renowned for its safety:acetaminophen, one of the nation’s most popular pain relievers.

Acetaminophen – the active ingredient in Tylenol– is considered safe when taken at recommended doses. Tens of millions of people use it weekly with no ill effect. But in larger amounts, especially in combination with alcohol, the drug can damage or even destroy the liver.

Davy Baumle, a slender 12-year-oldwho loved to ride his dirt bike through the woods of southern Illinois, died from acetaminophen poisoning. So did tiny five-month-old Brianna Hutto. So did Marcus Trunk, a strapping 23-year-old construction worker from Philadelphia.

The toll does not have to be so high.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has long been aware of studies showing the risks of acetaminophen – in particular, that the margin between the amount that helps and the amount that can cause serious harmis smaller than for other pain relievers.

So, too, has McNeil Consumer Healthcare, the unit of Johnson & Johnson that has built Tylenol into a billion-dollar brand and the leader in acetaminophen sales.

Yet federal regulators have delayed or failed to adopt measures designed to reduce deaths and injuries from acetaminophen overdose,which the agency calls a “persistent, important public health problem.”

The FDA has repeatedly deferred decisions on consumer protection seven when they were...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, August 11, 2013

Specialty Compounding, LLC Issues Nationwide Voluntary Recall

Specialty Compounding, LLC Issues Nationwide Voluntary Recall of All
Lots of Unexpired Sterile Products Due to Reports of Adverse Events

Specialty Compounding, LLC, a subsidiary of Peoples Pharmacy Inc., is voluntarily recalling all lots of sterile medications within expiry.

The recall was initiated after reports of bacterial infection affecting 15 patients at two Texas hospitals, Corpus Christi Medical Center Doctors Regional and Corpus Christi Medical Center Bay Area, whose treatment included IV infusions of calcium gluconate from Specialty Compounding. There is a potential association between the infections and the medication at this time.

If there is microbial contamination in products intended to be sterile, patients are at risk of serious infections which may be life threatening.

“Because of the potential association between the hospital-based infections and sterile compounded medications produced by Specialty Compounding, we are voluntarily recalling all sterile products out of an abundance of caution,” said Ray Solano, R.Ph., pharmacist in charge at Specialty Compounding. “We deeply regret the impact this recall has on our patients and the hospitals that we serve, but patient safety must always be our first concern.”

Friday, June 28, 2013

FDA Closes Down Illegal On-Line Pharmacies

Operation Pangea VI combats online sale and distribution of unapproved prescription medicines 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in partnership with international regulatory and law enforcement agencies, took action this week against more than 9,600 websites that illegally sell potentially dangerous, unapproved prescription medicines to consumers. These actions include the issuance of regulatory warnings, and seizure of offending websites and $41,104,386 worth of illegal medicines worldwide.


The action occurred as part of the 6th annual International Internet Week of Action (IIWA), a global cooperative effort to combat the online sale and distribution of potentially counterfeit and illegal medical products. As part of this year’s international effort – Operation Pangea VI – the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, in coordination with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colorado, seized and shut down 1,677 illegal pharmacy websites. The effort ran from June 18 to June 25, 2013.

Many of these websites appeared to be operating as a part of an organized criminal network

that falsely purported its websites to be “Canadian Pharmacies.” These websites displayed fake licenses and certifications to convince U.S. consumers to purchase drugs they advertised as “brand name” and “FDA approved.” The drugs received as part of Operation Pangea were not from Canada, and were neither brand name nor FDA approved. These websites also used certain major U.S. pharmacy retailer names to trick U.S. consumers into believing an affiliation existed with these retailers.

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

FDA Warns Zithromax® / Zmax® Antibiotics Potential Risk of Fatal Heart Rhythms

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning the public that azithromycin (Zithromax or Zmax) can cause abnormal changes in the electrical activity of the heart that may lead to a potentially fatal irregular heart rhythm. Patients at particular risk for developing this condition include those with known risk factors such as existing QT interval prolongation, low blood levels of potassium or magnesium, a slower than normal heart rate, or use of certain drugs used to treat abnormal heart rhythms, or arrhythmias. 


This communication is a result of the FDA's review of a study by medical researchers as well as another study by a manufacturer of the drug that assessed the potential for azithromycin to cause abnormal changes in the electrical activity of the heart.
The azithromycin drug labels have been updated to strengthen the Warnings and Precautions section with information related to the risk of QT interval prolongation and torsades de pointes, a specific, rare heart rhythm abnormality. Information has also been added regarding the results of a clinical QT study which showed that azithromycin can prolong the QTc interval. (see Data Summary)
Health care professionals should consider the risk of fatal heart rhythms with azithromycin when considering treatment options for patients who are already at risk for cardiovascular events (see Additional Information for Health Care Professionals below).  FDA notes that the potential risk of QT prolongation with azithromycin should be placed in appropriate context when choosing an antibacterial drug: Alternative drugs in the macrolide class, or non-macrolides such as the fluoroquinolones, also have the potential for QT prolongation or other significant side effects that should be considered when choosing an antibacterial drug.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: FDA Issues a Alert on Potential Risks

The US FDA has issued an alert concerning Metal-on-metal hip implants consist of a ball, stem and shell, all made from cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloys. 
There are two types of metal-on-metal hip implants:
  • Traditional total hip replacement systems
  • Resurfacing hip systems
Purpose: In February 2011, the FDA launched a metal-on-metal hip implant webpage. The FDA is providing updated safety information and recommendations to patients and health care providers.  This new information is based on the FDA’s current assessment of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the benefits and risks, the evaluation of the published literature, and the results of the June 2012 Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Advisory Panel meeting.

Summary of Problem and Scope:
Metal-on-metal hip implants have unique risks in addition to the general risks of all hip implants.
In metal-on-metal hip implants, the metal ball and the metal cup slide against each other during walking or running. Metal can also be released from other parts of the implant where two implant components connect.  Metal release will cause some tiny metal particles to wear off of the device around the implant, which may cause damage to bone and/or soft tissue surrounding the implant and joint. This is sometimes referred to as an “adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR)” or an “adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD).”
Soft tissue damage may lead to pain, implant loosening, device failure and the need for revision surgery (a surgical procedure where the implant is removed and another is put in its place). Some of the metal ions released will enter the bloodstream and travel to other parts of the body, where they may cause symptoms or illnesses elsewhere in the body (systemic reactions).
Presently, the FDA does not have enough scientific data to specify the concentration of metal ions in a patient’s body or blood necessary to produce adverse systemic effects.  In addition, the reaction seems to be specific to individual patients, with different patients having different reactions to the metal wear particles.
Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons:
Before Surgery
  • Select a metal-on-metal hip implant for your patient only after determining that the benefit-risk profile of using a metal-on-metal hip implant outweighs that of using an alternative hip system (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic or ceramic-on-metal).  Factors to consider include the patient’s age, sex, weight, diagnosis, and activity level.
    • Note that a 2012 FDA advisory panel of experts identified young males with larger femoral heads as the best candidates for hip resurfacing systems. 
  • Inform patients about the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the risk that the hip implant may need to be replaced. Also discuss the patient’s expectations and review the potential complications of surgery with a metal-on-metal hip implant.
  • Pay close attention to patient populations for which metal-on-metal hip systems are contraindicated.  Be aware of the risk factors that may predispose a device to excess wear and early failure. 
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons before, during and immediately following metal-on-metal hip replacement surgery can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Patient Follow-Up
  • Follow-up of asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, including physical examinations and routine radiographs, should occur periodically (typically every 1 to 2 years).  If the hip is functioning properly, the FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely perform additional soft tissue imaging or assess metal ion levels in the blood.
  • Be aware that there are certain patients who are at risk for increased device wear and/or adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) and should be followed more closely. They may include:
    • Patients with bilateral implants
    • Patients with resurfacing systems with small femoral heads (44mm or smaller)
    • Female patients
    • Patients receiving high doses of corticosteroids
    • Patients with evidence of renal insufficiency
    • Patients with suppressed immune systems
    • Patients with suboptimal alignment of device components
    • Patients with suspected metal sensitivity (e.g. cobalt, chromium, nickel)
    • Patients who are severely overweight
    • Patients with high levels of physical activity.
  • Pay close attention to signs and symptoms that may be associated with metal-on-metal hip implants. Please see the website for a list of common ALTRs and systemic symptoms/complications.
  • Conduct a thorough evaluation if a patient with a metal-on-metal hip experiences local symptoms such as pain or swelling at or near the hip, a change in walking ability or a noise from the hip joint more than three months after metal-on-metal hip implant surgery. 
  • Follow symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants at least every 6 months.
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for patient follow-up can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
For additional information regarding soft tissue imaging or assessing metal ion levels, please review the FDA’s recommendations below.
Imaging
For some symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, additional diagnostic imaging is required to assess and diagnose soft tissue findings surrounding the implant.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of using different types of diagnostic imaging procedures (e.g. MRI with metal artifact reduction, CT, or ultrasound) as well as the availability of specialized radiology expertise when determining the most appropriate imaging modality for each patient.
If you determine that an MRI of a metal-on-metal hip implant patient is appropriate, the FDA recommends the following:
  • Consult with the radiologist to evaluate the benefits and risks of utilizing MRI with metal artifact reduction;
  • Review the available device-specific labeling from manufacturers for MRI Conditions; and
  • Inform the MRI site that the patient has a metal-on-metal hip implant.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations about imaging a patient with a metal-on-metal hip implant, please see Imaging Evaluation.
Assessing Metal Ion Levels
Some patients with a metal-on-metal hip implant may have elevated metal ion levels (e.g. cobalt and/or chromium) in their bloodstream.  Several factors can impact the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical interpretation of metal ion test results.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • The FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely check metal ion levels in the blood if the orthopaedic surgeon feels the hip is functioning properly and the patient is asymptomatic.
  • Patients with metal-on-metal hip implants who develop any symptoms or physical findings that indicate their device may not be functioning properly, should be considered for metal ion testing.  
  • If measuring metal ions, consider obtaining and following serial measurements (using the same sample type, the same measurement method, and preferably the same laboratory) in determining metal ion levels in symptomatic patients.
  • At this time, the FDA is not recommending a specific metal ion level as a trigger for revision or other medical intervention.  The metal ion concentration values, including increases in metal ion levels over time, should be considered in addition to the overall clinical scenario including symptoms, physical findings, and other diagnostic results when determining further actions.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations on metal ion test methods, selecting a test lab and interpreting test results, please see Metal Ion Testing.
Device Revision
The decision to revise a metal-on-metal hip implant should be made in response to the overall clinical scenario. In case of adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR), revision of a metal-on-metal hip implant may have a worse prognosis than revision of other types of bearing surfaces.
In selecting components for revision:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of all bearing surfaces for each patient.
  • Check the specific device labeling for compatibility of device components.
  • If a patient is suspected to have developed metal sensitivity, carefully select the materials of the revision components (potentially avoiding materials with nickel or chromium). 
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations on device revisions, which includes our recommendation for a retrieval analysis of every failed metal-on-metal hip implant.
Summary of FDA Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons
Symptomatic PatientsAsymptomatic Patients
Regular Clinical Evaluation At least every six months Typically at least once every 1 to 2 years
Soft Tissue Imaging Consider the benefits and risks of MRI, CT and ultrasound for each patient. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
Metal Ion Testing Consider monitoring serial metal ion levels.  Currently, the most reliable test results are available for cobalt in EDTA-anticoagulated blood*.  In repeat tests, use same sample type, measurement method and preferably the same laboratory. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
*For chromium testing, a validated method that resolves potential interferences must be used.  Please reviewFDA’s recommendations for chromium testing.
Recommendations for Health Care Providers:
Metal-on-metal implant patients with systemic symptoms are more likely to visit their primary care practitioner than their orthopaedic surgeon, which makes it important for all health care providers to be aware of metal ion adverse events that may occur in metal-on-metal hip implant patients. Based on case reports, these events may include:
  • General hypersensitivity reaction (skin rash)
  • Cardiomyopathy
  • Neurological changes including sensory changes (auditory, or visual impairments)
  • Psychological status change (including depression)
  • Renal function impairment
  • Thyroid dysfunction (including neck discomfort, fatigue, weight gain or feeling cold.
Patients with systemic findings that are thought to be related to a metal-on-metal hip implant should be advised to follow-up with his or her orthopaedic surgeon to determine the appropriate course of action.
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations to Health Care Professionals.
Recommendations for Patients Considering Hip Implants:
  • Be aware that every hip implant has benefits and risks.
  • Discuss your options for hip surgery with your surgeon. 
A list of some questions to ask your orthopaedic surgeon can be found in Patients Considering a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
Recommendations for Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants:
  • If you are not having any symptoms and your orthopaedic surgeon believes your implant is functioning appropriately, you should continue to routinely follow-up with the surgeon every 1 to 2 years.
  • If you develop new or worsening problems such as pain, swelling, numbness, noise (popping, grinding, clicking or squeaking of your hip), and/or change in your ability to walk, contact your orthopaedic surgeon right away. 
  • If you experience changes in your general health, including new or worsening symptoms outside your hip, let your physician know you have a metal-on-metal hip implant.
Additional information for patients with a metal-on-metal hip can be found in Patients who have a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
FDA Activities:
The FDA is committed to providing reliable safety recommendations to patients and health care providers about the utilization of these devices.  Recent activities include:
  1. On May 6, 2011, the FDA instructed manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement (THR) systems to conduct postmarket surveillance study of these devices.  Five manufacturers currently market metal-on-metal hip implants in the U.S. and all five have approved postmarket surveillance study plans.  Data from these studies will provide patients and health care providers with additional information about the safety profiles of the implants, including the effect of metal ion concentrations in the bloodstream.
  2. On June 27-28, 2012, the FDA convened the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee to seek expert scientific and clinical opinion on the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip systems. Information from this panel meeting has helped form these recommendations.
  3. On January 17, 2013 the FDA issued a proposed order requiring manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems to submit premarket approval (PMA) applications.  Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were evaluated under the 510(k) premarket notification program. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were marketed in the U.S. prior to 1976 legislation that gave the agency premarket authority over medical devices. As “preamendment devices,” they were designated as Class III (higher risk) devices but were regulated under the 510(k) premarket notification program.
Additional information on FDA ongoing activities are provided in FDA’s Role and Activities.
Other Resources:
For additional resources, see Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: Other Resources.
Reporting Problems to the FDA:
Prompt reporting of adverse events can help the FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical devices. If you suspect a problem with a metal-on-metal device, we encourage you to file a voluntary report through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program. Health care personnel employed by facilities that are subject to the FDA's user facility reporting requirements should follow the reporting procedures established by their facilities. Device manufacturers must comply with the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulations.

Reports to the FDA about adverse events related to metal-on-metal hip systems include, but are not limited to: pain, malposition, adverse local tissue reaction, metallosis, hypersensitivity (allergy), loosening, and dislocation.
To help he FDA learn as much as possible about the adverse events associated with metal-on-metal hip implants, please include the following information in your reports, if available:
  • Date of implantation
  • Date of implant removal (if applicable)
  • Clinical cause for revision (if available)
  • System components affected by the adverse event.
Read more about Hip Implants and Workers' Compensation
May 16, 2011
"The FDA is continuing to gather and review all available information about currently marketed metal-on-metal hip systems, including information related to adverse events that may be associated with increase levels of cobalt ...
Aug 27, 2010
Johnson and Johnson has recalled 2 Hip Implants because of failure. The two implants were made by the DePuy Orthopaedics unit of Johnson and Johnson. The decision to withdrawn the products was based upon the fact ...
Jul 10, 2012
Under Administrative Code section 80.32(3), a “total hip prosthesis” carries a minimum 40% PPD. Based on previous Wisconsin Court and LIRC decisions, generally any subsequent invasive surgery resulting from the same ...
Dec 17, 2010
The workers' compensation insurance system is about to be the initial payor for joint replacement surgery and for the complications of defective artificial hip joint damage that were said to be inadequately tested because of a ...

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Tobacco Industry Argues Against New Cigarette Warnings

Big Tobacco continues to argue against the Federal requirement of new dramatic warnings of cigarette packs. Tobacco is the a leading contributing cause for death in the workplace.

Click here to read more from Jurist blog....

"A panel of judges for the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [official website] heard oral arguments on Tuesday over the constitutionality of newFood and Drug Administration (FDA) [official website] regulations [text] requiring cigarette packaging and advertisements to display more prominent graphic health warning labels [materials]. A federal judge issued a permanent injunction [JURIST report] last month prohibiting the warnings as unconstitutional. The new requirements of graphic image and textual warning labels were imposed by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) [HR 1256 text].



Related articles

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

NIOSH Alerts Home Healthcare Workers About Latex Allergies



NIOSH (The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety) has published a booklet to educate Home Healthcare Workers about preventing latex allergies. Latex products are made from natural rubber, and sensitivity can develop after repeated exposure. Limiting exposure to latex can help prevent allergic reactions for both home healthcare workers and their clients.

Once Natural Rubber Latex (NRL) sensitivity occurs, allergic individuals continue to experience symptoms, which have included life-threatening reactions, not only on exposure to NRL in the workplace but also upon receiving or accompanying a family member receiving healthcare services at inpatient as well as office-based settings.

In September of 1997, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final rule requiring cautionary statements in the labeling of all medical devices that contain natural rubber likely to come in contact with humans. The rule provides that such products must contain the following cautionary statement in bold print: "Caution: This product contains natural rubber latex which may cause allergic reactions." Additionally, the FDA issued a final ruling that the labeling of medical devices that contain natural rubber, likely to come in contact with humans, shall not contain the term "hypoallergenic".

Over the last few years, there has been a significant increase in the number of workers' compensation claims filed against employers on behalf of individuals who have suffered latex allergic reactions. Scientists and government officials estimate that about 950,000 U.S. health care workers have developed an allergic sensitivity to latex.
.....
For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses. 

Related articles