Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-25T04:43:20.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Legal Status of Unapproved Generic Drugs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2021

Richard R. Abood
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Generic drugs that have not been specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are today being marketed, and considerable legal controversy surrounds the issue of whether the FDA can require premarketing approval of generic copy drugs (“me-toos”).

Prescribers and dispensers of drugs cannot blindly assume that every drug on the market has been approved by the FDA, and that it will be safe and effective, as can be seen from the following incident. In September 1981, in an unprecedented action, an Ohio grand jury indicted a pharmacist for manslaughter in the death of a woman to whom he sold a furosemide product unapproved by the Food and Drug Administration. The woman died of congestive heart failure and the grand jury found probable cause that the death was caused by the diuretic. The drug was dispensed despite a March 30,1979,news release from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare warning that unapproved furosemide tablets were being marketed and that these drugs might be ineffective and could possibly be harmful.

Type
Pharmacy Law
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 24 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio), September, 15, 1981.Google Scholar
HEW News, P 79–6 (March 30, 1979).Google Scholar
Ch. 675, §§1–902, 52 Stat. 1040 (1938), as amended Pub. L. No. 87-781, 76 Stat. 780 (codified at 21 U.S.C. §§301-92) (1962).Google Scholar
Ch. 3915, §§1-13, 34 Stat. 768 (1906).Google Scholar
Ch. 675, §§505(a), (b), 52 Stat. 1040, 1052 (1938).Google Scholar
Id. §505(d), 52 Stat. at 1052.Google Scholar
21. U.S.C. §355(d) (1962).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. §321(p)(1), (2) (1976).Google Scholar
Id. §355(a).Google Scholar
Id. §355(d) (1976).Google Scholar
Id. §321(p)(1) (1968).Google Scholar
Note, Drug Efficacy and the 1962 Drug Amendments, Georgetown Law Journal 60(1):185, 207, n. 141 (October 1971).Google Scholar
Cited in United States v. Articles of Drug (Lannett), 585 F.2d 575, 578 (3d Cir. 1978) [hereinafter cited as Lannett].Google Scholar
Pharmadyne, note 28 infra, 466 F. Supp at 102. n. 5.Google Scholar
See 21 C.F.R. §314.1(f) (1981).Google Scholar
Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, Inc., 412 U.S. 609 (1973) [hereinafter cited as Hynson]. See also Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 U.S. 645 (1973); Ciba Corp. v. Weinberger, 412 U.S. 640 (1973); USV Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Weinberger, 412 U.S. 655 (1973).Google Scholar
Hoffman-LaRoche v. Weinberger, 425 F. Supp. 890 (D.D.C. 1975).Google Scholar
Lannett, supra note 13.Google Scholar
Id. at 576.Google Scholar
Id. at 582, 583 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar
Id. at 583. See 21 C.F.R. §310.3(h)(1)-(5) (1977).Google Scholar
Id. at 583, n. l5. See 21 U.S.C. §351(b) (1976) (provides that a drug is adulterated if its strength differs from, or its quality or purity falls below, compendium standards).Google Scholar
See Hynson, , supra note 16.Google Scholar
FDA Associate General Counsel for Drugs, William Vodra, at October 17, 1978 seminar update of the National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers in New York City.Google Scholar
See LaRoche, Hoffman, supra note 17.Google Scholar
Id. at 892.Google Scholar
Lannett, supra note 13, at 582.Google Scholar
Pharmadyne Laboratories, Inc. v. Kennedy, 466 F. Supp. 100 (D.N.I. 1979) aff'd on other grounds, 596 F.2d 568 (3d Cir. 1979).Google Scholar
Id. at 102, 103.Google Scholar
Id. at 104, n. 7.Google Scholar
Id. at 103.Google Scholar
Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 475 F. Supp. 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1979), rev'd. 629 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
United States v. Generix Drug Corp., 498 F. Supp. 288 (S.D. Fla. 1980), vacated, 654 F.2d 1114 (5th Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
Premo, supra note 32, 629 F.2d 795 (2d Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
United States v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, 511 F. Supp. 958 (D.N.J. 1981).Google Scholar
Premo, supra note 32, 629 F.2d at 803.Google Scholar
Id. at 805, n.9.Google Scholar
Premo, supra note 35.Google Scholar
See Generix, , supra note 33, 654 F.2d 1114 (1981).Google Scholar
21 U.S.C. §321(g)(1) (1976) provides:Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
See Generix, , supra note 33, 654 F.2d at 1117. Some information in an NDA, such as manufacturing techniques, quality control, and the precise manner of formulating the final dosage, are closely guarded trade secrets which the FDA cannot reveal. See also 21 U.S.C, §331(j) (1976), 21 C.F.R. §314.14(g) (1981).Google Scholar
Id. at 1117. See also §321(p)(2), supra note 8.Google Scholar
Id. at 1117.Google Scholar
Id. at 1117, n.4. The court focused on the fact tha the FDA's laxness in enforcing the NDA system prior to Hoffman-LaRoche was due to its own fear that “it would have a difficult time in court contending that a specific version [of an established drug] is a new drug” within §321(p).Google Scholar
Id. at 1118, 1119.Google Scholar
Id. at 1119. See also discussion, supra note 24.Google Scholar
The Generix court stated that it may be good public policy to regulate bioavailability and bioequivalence through the NDA process, but the court felt that it would be inappropriately legislating since the statute did not require such regulation. Id. at 1119, 1120.Google Scholar
In addition to tort liability, some states have laws prohibiting the substitution or dispensing of an unapproved generic product.Google Scholar