FDA

Subscribe to FDA via RSS

This week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (“OPDP”) posted a warning letter (the “Letter”)[1], issued on May 29, 2025, to Sprout Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Sprout”) and its CEO, Cindy Eckert (“Eckert”), regarding a social media post promoting ADDYI® (flibanserin) (“Addyi”). According to FDA, the now-flagged Instagram post, shared by Eckert, touted Addyi’s benefits but left out crucial safety information and important details on for the indicated population. There is a lot to unpack with this Letter and FDA’s manner of issuance, but as previewed in our prior blog posts this year, we believe this to be yet another example of FDA’s enhanced focus on drug advertising and promotion. Expect to see more warning letters—especially via social media advertising and promotion, actions directed at executives or personal social media accounts, and other creative ways the agency can push its mandate—in lieu of written regulation—to police the pharmaceutical industry.Continue Reading FDA Ratchets Enforcement on Social Media Promotion in New Warning Letter

In an interesting and somewhat unexpected turnabout over the last six months, FDA has pivoted its focus from regulating industry’s use of artificial intelligence (“AI”) to how the agency itself utilizes AI. This internal shift marks a departure from FDA’s development of AI guidance over the last few years.Continue Reading What to Watch: FDA Shifts Attention on Artificial Intelligence

From “gold standard science” to biopharma “GNC store”, this year’s Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) 2025 Annual Conference in Washington, DC, on May 15–16, a vital gathering for life sciences professionals, was full of sound bites, featured two standout sessions: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Martin A. Makary on Day 1 and Congressman (D-Mass) Jake Auchincloss on Day 2. Their talks, of course, revealed stark differences in approach—Dr. Makary’s forward-looking optimism and Mr. Auchincloss’s calls for concern—yet shared a commitment to advancing innovation and protecting the core of the agency. To be sure, much of what was said (aside from Dr. Makary’s now widely reported-on comment about a new vaccine framework) was not new, but there are a number of industry takeaways when viewed together and in the context of the conference itself.Continue Reading Reflections on the FDLI 2025 Annual Conference – Differing Tones, Shared Goals

This week, underscoring a commitment to national security, the White House and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued separate communications that aim to bolster domestic drug manufacturing while tightening oversight of foreign facilities. But they also raise questions about implementation, industry impact, and long-term effects. This is another step from the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) Section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals initiated on April 1, 2025. These developments, while unsurprising, should be viewed within the constellation of broader administration policy, and could make real progress on furthering the manufacturing onshoring agenda for the critical life sciences industry.Continue Reading Onshoring Pharma Ops: Reading Recent EO and Policy Tea Leaves

Last Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the “District Court”) issued a highly anticipated – and unsurprising – opinion invalidating the U.S. Food & Drug Administration’s (“FDA’s” or the “Agency’s”) controversial rule that ended its longstanding policy of enforcement discretion for laboratory-developed tests, or “LDTs,” purporting to regulate them as “devices” under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (the “FDCA”) (the “LDT Rule” or the “Rule”). While this is a clear win for companies in the diagnostic and lab services space, we are now left wondering – is there any path forward for the LDT Rule? It’s not looking too likely but, these days, anything could happen.Continue Reading LDT Final Rule Series: Part 4 – Rule Overturned by Federal District Court

When was the last time you thought about “data on file” (“DOF”)? Probably not recently, but last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) posted an untitled letter (the “Letter”)[1] that was issued on February 3, 2025 to Edenbridge DBA Dexcel (“Dexcel”) over allegedly misleading promotional materials for the multiple myeloma drug Hemady® (dexamethasone) involving—you guessed it—a DOF reference. This marks OPDP’s first untitled letter of the year and the first under the new administration. The letter is relatively uninventive in terms of enforcement angles—leading with a garden-variety failure to present “any” safety information—but it does serve as a reminder that FDA can and will ask for DOF references, especially those that substantiate Consistent with FDA-Required Labeling (“CFL”) promotional materials. And of course, despite all the news about regulatory cuts affecting FDA, OPDP still appears alive and well.Continue Reading Reminder: FDA Does, In Fact, Review DOF

On January 7, 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or “Agency”) released a long-awaited guidance titled, “Communications From Firms to Health Care Providers Regarding Scientific Information on Unapproved Uses of Approved/Cleared Medical Products: Questions and Answers” (the “Guidance”).[1] The Guidance is a finalized version of the draft guidance released in 2023 (the “Draft Guidance”), which we covered here, and updates FDA’s collection of guidances on the topic, including its 2014 draft guidance titled, “Distributing Scientific and Medical Publications on Unapproved New Uses — Recommended Practices” (the “2014 Draft Guidance”)[2] and its 2009 guidance titled, “Good Reprint Practices for the Distribution of Medical Journal Articles and Medical or Scientific Reference Publications on Unapproved New Uses of Approved Drugs and Approved or Cleared Medical Devices” (the “2009 Guidance”).[3]Continue Reading Finally, FDA’s Final Word on Unapproved Use Communications

Among the wave of guidance documents issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the first week of 2025 were three notable draft guidance documents pertaining to medical devices (together, the “Draft Guidances”). The Draft Guidances hit on the topics of in vitro diagnostic (“IVD”) devices, artificial intelligence (“AI”) enabled device software functions, and pulse oximeters. This uncharacteristic deluge of guidance all within the span of a week illustrates the Agency’s desire to disseminate policy ahead of the incoming administration – especially as it relates to medical devices, which for a variety of reasons that any follower of this blog could intuit, have become a hot-button issue across the various corners of the healthcare and life sciences industries.Continue Reading FDA Dumps Trio of Device-Related Guidances Prior to Administration Change

On December 5, 2024, just in time for the holidays, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) released a draft guidance titled “Expedited Program for Serious Conditions: Accelerated Approval of Drugs and Biologics Guidance for Industry” (the “Draft Guidance”).[1] FDA’s so-called “accelerated approval” program is designed to expedite the development and review of new drugs and/or biologics that fulfill unmet medical needs for serious or life-threatening conditions by granting market approval to therapeutics that show promise by meeting a surrogate endpoint (so long as the drug and/or biologic sponsor promises to conduct post-market, confirmatory trials to verify safety and efficacy). The Draft Guidance updates FDA’s policies and procedures for accelerated approval, including heightened requirements for confirmatory trials and a new process for expedited withdrawal of approval, based on mandates from the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which was penned to address concerns over the lag time between initial approvals under the accelerated approval program and final approval following the successful completion of confirmatory trials.[2] FDA is inviting comments to the Draft Guidance, with a deadline set for February 2, 2025.Continue Reading New Accelerated Approval Guidance Underscores Need for Accountability

This year, we have seen several monumental events that already are, or potentially could be, pivotal to the future of the Laboratory Developed Test (“LDT”) industry – first, the issuance of the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) final rule in May, which established a staged plan that will phase out FDA’s previous policy of enforcement discretion for LDTs; second, the overturn of the Chevron Doctrine in Loper v. Raimondo in late June; and third, the recent election of Donald Trump as the forty-seventh president of the United States. And of course there are the legal challenges—difficult to predict with the maelstrom of news over the past few months. However, we now have the context necessary to assess these challenges and make some informed predictions about their future. While a host of legal theories have been lobbed at the rule, they each underscore a common sentiment—agencies should not be able to create their own authority, a position strengthened by the overturn of Chevron and election of Trump.Continue Reading LDT Final Rule Series: Part 3 – Legal Challenges

Earlier this week, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) released its long-anticipated final guidance (the “Guidance”) on predetermined change control plans (“PCCPs”) for devices that utilize artificial intelligence/machine learning (“AI/ML”) software. FDA’s stated goal for the Guidance is to “to provide a forward-thinking approach to promote the development of safe and effective AI-enabled devices,” and it represents notable progress in the Agency’s scramble to keep with – or at least prevent being too far outpaced by – the rapid pace of AI/ML innovation, as used in digital health technology.Continue Reading FDA Releases Long-Anticipated Guidance on Predetermined Change Control Plans for Devices That Utilize AI/ML Software