2009 CSUCI Biol 503 FINAL Presentations Part 2 of 2 - Presentation Transcript
Levine v. Wyeth
Naveen Nunna, Drew Shami, and Sora Yoon
Phenergan Injection
Sterile, pyrogen-free solution for deep
intramuscular or intravenous
administration.
Clear, colorless solution
Light sensitive
Possesses antihistamine, sedative,
antimotion-sickness, antiemetic, and
anticholenergic.
Duration of action is 4 to 6 hours, may last
up to 12 hours
Metabolized in the liver
Usuage
Amelioration of allergic reactions
Anaphylaxis as an adjustment to epinephrine and other standard
measures
Other uncomplicated allergic conditions
For sedation and relief of apprehension and to produce light sleep
Active treatment of motion sickness
Prevention and control of nausea and vomiting associated with
anesthesia and surgery.
Postoperative pain
Contraindications
Pediatric patients under 2 years old
In comatose states and in patients who have
demonstrated idiosyncratic reaction or hypersensitivity
to promethazine.
Injection given by intra-arterial due to severe
arteriospasm and possible resultant gangrene.
Not given by subcutaneous route
cont.
1950 FDA approved 1988 Wyeth submit revised
Phenerganinjectable changes
1981 new FDA
1996 FDA request Wyeth to
requirements on labeling
retain verbiage in current label
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010
1973 & 1976 FDA
1998 FDA approve 1981 application,
approved labeling changes
final printed label must be identical to
package insert
1987 FDA suggest
different warnings of
arterial exposure
Background
Diana Levine, musician, visited a local clinic on April 7,
2000 for treatment for migraine headache.
Injected via Intramuscluar with Demerol for headache and
Phenergan for nausea. A week later she returned for
unsuccessful treatment. Received a second injection of both
drugs administered by Physician’s Assistant via IV-push.
IV-push is IV directly into vein
IV-drip is introduced into saline solution then through a
catheter
Phenergan entered artery by direct injection or
perivascularextravasation, which is escape from vein into
surrounding tissue and come in contact with arterial tissue.
She developed gangrene and first had her right hand
amputated then her forearm.
Her claim
Medical malpractice
Physician assistant ignored
label
Brought actionfordamages
against Wyeth
Common-law negligence
Phenergan’s labeling
did not prohibit IV-push
and strict-liability theories
Labeling did have a
warning but failed in
proper instructions
The warning for “Inadvertent Intra-arterial Injection” stated: “Due to the close
proximity of arteries and veins in the areas most commonly used for intravenous
injection, extreme care should be exercised to avoid perivascularextravasation or
inadvertent intra-arterial injection. Reports compatible with inadvertent intra-arterial
injection of Phener- gan Injection, usually in conjunction with other drugs intended
forintravenous use, suggest that pain, severe chemical irritation, severe spasm of distal
vessels, and resultant gangrene requiring amputation are likely under such
circumstances. Intravenous injection was in- tended in all the cases reported but
perivascularextravasation or arterial placement of the needle is now suspect. There is
no proven successful management of this condition after it occurs. . . . Aspiration of
dark blood does not preclude intra-arterial needle placement, be- cause blood is
discolored upon contact with Phenergan Injection. Use of syringes with rigid plungers
or of small bore needles might obscure typical arterial backflow if this is relied upon
alone. When used intra- venously, Phenergan Injection should be given in a
concentration no greater than 25 mg per mL and at a rate not to exceed 25 mg per
minute. When administering any irritant drug intravenously, it is usually preferable to
inject it through the tubing of an intravenous infusion set that is known to be
functioning satisfactorily. In the event that a patient complains of pain during
intended intravenous injection of Phenergan Injection, the injection should be stopped
immediately to provide for evaluation of possible arterial placement or
perivascularextravasation.” App. 390.
Torts
State tort suit
uncover unknown drug hazards and provide incentives for drug
manufacturers to disclose safety risks promptly.
Distinct compensatory function that may motivate injured
persons to come forward with information.
Can interfere with FDA’s desire to create a drug label
containing a specific set or cautions and instructions.
Can sometimes raise prices to where those who are sick are
unable to obtain the drugs they need
Product liability”
Marketing defects:
Inadequate warning labels or instructions
Cont.
Implies preexemption
Preemption is more appropriate because the FDCA contains no
evidence that Congress intended the FDA to set only “minimum
standards,” and the FDCA does not contain a saving clause.
Impossible for Wyeth to satisfy both state and federal labeling
requirements
FDA told Wyeth that Phenergan’s label renders its use “safe.”
Through state tort law: NO
Federal law does not preempt state law.
Wyeth v. Levine: Washington
County Superior Court
Levine (the bailiff) filed a common-law negligence claim against Wyeth, a state tort
lawsuit.
She claimed that the warning label was negligent in its failure to adequately address
the danger of IV push administration of the Phenergen antihistamine.
Wyeth countered that the warning label was sanctioned by the FDA under the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Therefore the lawsuit was “impliedly preempted” by federal
law.
Wyeth v. Levine: Washington
County Superior Court
The pharmaceutical corporation claimed that it was impossible to satisfy
both state as well as federal labeling requirements.
Wyeth also argued that state liabilities for FDA-approved labels would be
counter-productive for the intended objectives of the FDCA and FDA.
The jury sided with Levine, who was awarded with more than $6 million in
damages.
Wyeth v. Levine: Vermont
Supreme Court
Wyeth appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling by a 4-1 majority.
A specific provision of the FDCA said that FDA approval of a label was not required to
strengthen that label’s warnings.
Thus Wyeth could have supplemented the FDA-required information with additional warning
measures and could have conceivably complied with both federal and state laws.
Since FDA labeling requirements were intended to be a minimum framework of safety
precautions, state liabilities for inadequate labels would not interfere with the overall intention of
the FDCA.
Wyeth v. Levine: Vermont
Supreme Court
The lone dissenter on the Court argued that the demand for “IV push” to be removed
entirely from the label’s listing of appropriate uses of the drug was unreasonable.
IV push was still an acceptable, albeit risky, procedure that yielded satisfactory
results.
He also argued that the majority’s position seemed to condemn the drug as
completely unsafe, which was in direct contradiction to the FDA’s previous approval
of the drug.
Being the persistent corporation that it was, Wyeth appealed to the United States
Supreme Court (certiorari).
Wyeth v. Levine: U. S.
Supreme Court
Wyeth v. Levine: U. S.
Supreme Court
The question presented by the petition is whether the
FDA’s drug labeling judgments “preempt state law
product liability claims premised on the theory that
different labeling judgments were necessary to make
drugs reasonably safe for use.”
Wyeth v. Levine: U. S.
Supreme Court
Wyeth’s Pre-emption arguments
it would have been impossible for them to comply with the state-law
duty to modify Phenergan’s labeling without violating federal law
recognition of Levine’s state tort action creates an unacceptable
“obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes
and objectives of Congress,” because it substitutes a lay jury’s
decision about drug labeling for the expert judgment of the FDA
Wyeth v. Levine: U. S.
Supreme Court
Generally speaking, a manufacturer may only change a drug label after
the FDA approves a supplemental application. There is, however,
an FDA regulation that permits a manufacturer to make certain
changes to its label before receiving the agency’s approval. Among
other things, this “changes being effected” (CBE) regulation
provides that if a manufacturer is changing a label to “add or
strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or adverse
reaction” or to “add or strengthen an instruction about dosage and
administration that is intended to increase the safe use of the drug
product,” it may make the labeling change upon filing its
supplemental application with the FDA; it need not wait for FDA
approval.
Wyeth v. Levine: U. S.
Supreme Court
Decided March 4, 2009
Vermont verdict upheld with a 6-3 majority
JUSTICE THOMAS, I agree with the Court that the fact
that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved
the label for petitioner Wyeth’s drug Phenergan does not
pre-empt the state-law judgment before the Court.
Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Souter, and Stevens
concurred with Justice Thomas
Wyeth v. Levine: U. S.
Supreme Court
JUSTICE ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE (Roberts)
and JUSTICE SCALIA join, dissenting.
This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law. The Court holds
that a state tort jury, rather than the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), is ultimately responsible for regulating warning labels for
prescription drugs. I respectfully dissent. The FDA told Wyeth that
Phenergan’s label renders its use “safe.” But the State of Vermont,
through its tort law, said: “Not so.”
The state-law rule at issue here is squarely pre-empted. Therefore, I
would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Vermont.
Wyeth v. Levine: U. S.
Supreme Court
Wyeth V Lavine
7RUW 5HIRUP LQ WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV
7H[DV
y 7KH 7H[DV HFRQRP\\ LQWHJULW\\ KHDOWK ZHUH WKUHDWHQHG E\\ D
FXOWXUH RI FRUUXSWLRQ DQG PHULWOHVV ODZVXLWV
y 3ULPDULO\\ SHUSHWXDWHG E\\ WKRXVDQGV RI SHUVRQDO LQMXU\\ WULDO
DWWRUQH\\V
y 7H[DV ZDV EHFRPLQJ D V\\PERO RI SXEOLF GLVWUXVW DQG GLVJXVW
ZLWK WKH FRXUW V\\VWHP
y 'LVWRUWLRQV LQ MXGLFLDO V\\VWHPV KDG D WHUULEOH LPSDFW RQ WKH
ORFDO HFRQRP\\
7RUW LQ 7H[DV
y %XVLQHVVHV GLG QRW ZDQW WR FRPH WR WKH VWDWH LQ ZKLFK WKH\\
EHOLHYHG WKHLU HQWLUH EXVLQHVV FRXOG EH DW ULVN EHFDXVH RI
´-DFNSRW -XVWLFHµ
y 6RXWK RI +XVWRQ WKH GHDWK RI D EXOO UHFHLYHG D GDPDJH
YHUGLFW RI P ZKHUH DV LQ RWKHU SDUWV RI WKH FRXQWU\\ WKH
GHDWK RI D KXPDQ EHLQJ KDG D YDOXH RI OHVV WKDQ P
y 'RFWRUV ZHUH EHFRPLQJ WKH PDLQ WDUJHW RI XQPHULWRULRXV
ODZVXLWV ZKLFK FRQWLQXHG WKURXJK WKH V
y )LQDOO\\ PRVW RI WKH PDOSUDFWLFH LQVXUDQFH FRPSDQLHV SXOOHG
RXW RI VWDWH
7RUW LQ 7H[DV
y 7KHUH ZHUH RQO\\ GRFWRUV
SHU FRXQW\\ DQG WKH
VLWXDWLRQ ZDV JHWWLQJ
ZRUVH
y 3KDUPDFHXWLFDO FRPSDQLHV
DQG GRFWRUV ZHUH
VFUHDPLQJ IRU UHIRUPV
0 comments
Post a comment