Readers of MassTortDefense know how FDA regulatory treatment of advertising and promotion can impact product liability litigation involving drugs and medical devices. Earlier this year, the FDA issued draft Guidance for Industry Presenting Risk Information in Prescription Drug and Medical Device Promotion. This draft guidance describes factors FDA considers when evaluating advertisements (ads) and promotional labeling for prescription drugs, ads for restricted medical devices, and promotional labeling for all medical devices for their compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and relevant regulations. The draft guidance discusses factors that are relevant to the disclosure of risk information and provides numerous examples to illustrate FDA’s thinking on these factors. The recommendations contained in this draft guidance apply to promotional materials directed to both consumers and healthcare professionals.
As the comment period has drawn to a close, the medical device trade group AdvaMed has weighed in, arguing that the FDA’s draft guidance on presentation of risk information in advertisements fails to adequately distinguish between devices and drugs. The group asserts that the draft lacks content and specificity for device makers, and that a separate guidance document for medical devices is probably warranted. One example is the discussion in the draft of the important concept of over-warning, which is done solely with drug examples.
The comments also not the inherent differences between drugs as therapy and a device which requires a separate intervention (surgery) to be used. Because devices are often used in conjunction with other devices and drugs, communications with consumers of medical devices may need to focus more on a broader spectrum of risks and benefits of ongoing therapies, with a larger group of health care professionals.
AdvaMed also questions the draft’s notion that risk information should be spread throughout a promotional piece, rather than located in one easy spot for the consumer to find. Overall, the draft appears to focus on risk information without adequately discussing the intersection with benefit information.
The group agrees with a move towards the “reasonable consumer” standard for evaluating promotional pieces, and suggests the same direction be taken with DTC advertisements. Highly trained regulators cannot easily evaluate DTC ads as would an average consumer. Finally, the group argues the draft should provide more specific guidance on use of the Internet for promotion, and the use of hyperlinks. Increasingly the Internet is a source of information for medical consumers.