New Boston Scientific warning letter
This article was originally published in The Silver Sheet
Executive Summary
Boston Scientific failed to notify participants in a clinical trial of the risks associated with stent fractures, according to an FDA warning letter issued to the firm Aug. 30. An agency inspection conducted in May at Boston Scientific Cardiovascular found "serious violations" related to a clinical trial of a stent-graft for treating abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), a life-threatening condition that causes a weakening of the aorta. In April 2005 the company acquired TriVascular, a private firm that was developing less-invasive medical devices and procedures for treating AAA. The 43-patient, Phase I safety trial, initiated in 2003 by TriVascular, was halted in 2006 by Boston Scientific after researchers observed fractures in numerous stent-grafts. FDA's warning letter also notes that Boston Scientific did not evaluate two deaths that occurred during the study to determine if they were related to the device. The agency has requested that the firm "provide documentation of a corrective action plan that will ensure that all [unanticipated adverse device effects] observed in clinical studies sponsored by Boston Scientific will be appropriately evaluated and reported.
You may also be interested in...
Chinese Firms Up Their Game In Novel Flu Antiviral Development
Joincare Pharmaceutical and partner TaiGen Biotechnology tout preliminary Phase III results in uncomplicated acute influenza for TG-1000, a homegrown follower of Shionogi/Roche’s oral antiviral Xofluza. Novel antivirals for flu were hotly pursued by Chinese developers throughout 2023.
Quotable: Words Of Wisdom From Our Recent APAC Coverage
Scrip's APAC team selects notable quotes from recent interviews, conferences and other coverage to highlight the views of senior executives and officials on the major topics facing the biopharma sector in the region.
Generic Or Innovator? Sandoz Sues CMS Over Potential Change In Rebate Classification
Sandoz argued against paying higher rebates for two of its drugs via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicaid drug rebate program in a US court six years after the suggestion was first made.