Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
There has been a growing number of claims in medical device and pharmaceutical product liability actions based on purported conflicts of interest of clinical investigators conducting medical device or pharmaceutical clinical studies. Financial interests of clinical investigators can be a potential source of bias in clinical study data used to support the application for FDA approval of a new drug or a new medical device. In particular, a clinical trial investigator may have a financial interest in the outcome of the study, due to payment arrangements or equity interests in the sponsors of clinical studies. While the FDA does not prohibit a clinical trial investigator from having a purported financial interest, it does regulate the disclosure of that information. The financial disclosure requirements of clinical investigators are governed by 21 Code of Federal Regulations Part 54, which came into effect in 1999. Generally, FDA regulations require that medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers submit financial interest disclosures with their applications for a new drug or a new device. On March 20, 2001, the FDA issued its original Guidance on Financial Disclosure By Clinical Investigators to assist pharmaceutical and medical device companies, as well as clinical investigators in interpreting and complying with the federal regulations governing financial interest disclosures.
In recent years, there has been an increased public interest concerning the regulation of conflicts of interests for clinical investigators. In 2009, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Services published its report, The Food and Drug Administration's Oversight of Clinical Investigators' Financial Information, which raised concerns regarding the FDA's monitoring of conflict of interests to ensure the integrity of clinical research. In response, the FDA has recently updated its Guidance for Industry: Financial Disclosure of Clinical Investigators for the first time since 2001. The revised Guidance addresses issues raised in the OIG's report as well as frequently asked questions from the industry and public. This article briefly examines the key changes to the revised Guidance and the practical implications of the new guidelines in product liability cases.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.