Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

LILIY PLEADS GUILTY TO TECHNICAL MISDEMEANORS IN ORAFLEX LABELING AND ADVERSE REACTION REPORTING; FIRM AGREES TO PAY $25,000 FINE, FORMER VP TO PAY $15,000

Executive Summary

Lilly pleaded guilty Aug. 21 in the U.S. Southern District Court of Indiana to: (1) unintentionally providing inadequate label warnings on 15 shipments of Oraflex (benoxaprofen) made immediately after the drug's approval; and (2) being unintentionally late in filing 10 liver or liver-kidney adverse reactions to Oraflex. In a same day press release, Lilly explained that "since there was no allegation ]by the Justice Dept.[ that Lilly or any of its employees acted intentionally to conceal information or mislead the FDA, the company has agreed to plead guilty to these two types of technical misdemeanors, and be subject to a maximum fine of $25,000, in order to avoid the time and expense of prolonged litigation and to bring the Oraflex matter to a conclusion." Lilly's plea agreement concludes a lengthy review by the Justice Dept. of Lilly's actions with respect to the anti-arthritic drug. In 1983, FDA requested the dept. to determine whether Lilly was guilty of "intentionally scheming to conceal important information from the agency." In addition to the maximum $25,000 fine the company agreed to pay, Ian Shedden, MD, former VP and chief medical officer of Lilly Research Labs, agreed to a total maximum fine of $15,000. Shedden joined Glaxo in July 1983. Lilly asserted in a letter to shareholders that "in bringing the two technical charges, the dept. has made some factual errors, seriously mischaracterized certain events, and omitted pertinent facts." The company presented its position on the two charges in attachments to the shareholder letter. With respect to initial U.S. labeling, Lilly said that at the time the labeling was developed "neither the company nor the FDA had determined any need for a warning statement concerning possible liver-kidney reactions. As the Dept. of Justice knows but did not state, the company had reported six clinical trial cases involving liver-kidney or kidney reactions to the FDA before the NDA was approved." According to the firm, "FDA acknowledged that it had received those reports before the drug was approved but did not consider such reactions 'exceptional' or 'noteworthy' for this type of drug." In addition, Lilly said the FDA officer principally responsible for approval of Oraflex "said that, while in hindsight he would have made certain changes in the labeling, he still would have approved the drug and would not have required a different statement in the initial labeling concerning liver reactions." Lilly told "The Pink Sheet" that "substantially fewer than 100" liability cases are pending in the U.S. Lilly also told its shareholders that in late February 1982 preliminary results of a postmarketing surveillance study "showed no unusual pattern of serious adverse reactions associated with the widespread use of Oraflex in the U.K. and did not suggest any problem with liver-kidney reactions." The firm added that U.K. regulatory authorities have stated "they did not perceive a problem with liver-kidney reactions until well after the time Oraflex was approved in the U.S." Lilly said when it learned of such reactions in the spring of 1982 it notified FDA of its intentions to revise the labeling, but that FDA asked the firm to delay the labeling change until the agency's Arthritis Advisory Cmte. considered the British reports in the context of adverse reactions with all nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Judge S. Hugh Dillin, in concluding remarks on the case, stated he is "satisfied that these ]misdemeanors[ were totally and completely inadvertent but, nevertheless, a violation of the regulations."

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS142970

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel