Labeling rules for pharmaceuticals
🔹 What Is Pharmaceutical Labeling?
Pharmaceutical labeling refers to all written, printed, or graphic material:
Accompanying a prescription or over-the-counter drug.
Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Intended to provide information on safety, effectiveness, dosage, warnings, contraindications, and side effects.
Labeling includes:
Package insert (professional labeling)
Patient information (medication guide)
Boxed warnings (for serious risks)
Promotional materials (if they make claims about use)
🔹 Legal and Regulatory Framework
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) – 1938
Requires accurate labeling and FDA approval.
Kefauver-Harris Amendments (1962)
Mandated proof of efficacy and safety; increased FDA control over labeling.
FDA Regulations (21 CFR Parts 201 & 202)
Provide detailed requirements on format, content, and warnings.
Drug Labeling Rule (2006)
Required a more user-friendly format for prescription drug labels.
Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS)
For high-risk drugs, with specific labeling and communication plans.
🔹 Purpose of Labeling Rules
Inform physicians and patients.
Ensure informed consent and safe use.
Reduce risk of adverse drug reactions.
Avoid misbranding, which is illegal under the FDCA.
📚 Landmark Cases Involving Pharmaceutical Labeling
✅ 1. Wyeth v. Levine (U.S. Supreme Court, 2009)
Facts:
Diana Levine, a musician, lost her arm due to gangrene after being injected with Phenergan (an anti-nausea drug) despite its FDA-approved label. She sued Wyeth (the drug manufacturer), claiming the warning label was insufficient.
Issue:
Does FDA approval of drug labeling preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that FDA approval does not shield manufacturers from state law liability.
Manufacturers are responsible for updating labels when new risks become known — a principle under the "changes being effected" (CBE) regulation.
Significance:
Strengthened state tort law as a supplement to federal regulation.
Affirmed that drug manufacturers have a continuing duty to warn, beyond initial FDA approval.
✅ 2. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett (U.S. Supreme Court, 2013)
Facts:
Karen Bartlett suffered severe injuries after taking a generic NSAID drug. The drug had an FDA-approved label, and the plaintiff claimed it was defectively labeled.
Issue:
Can a generic manufacturer be held liable under state law for not changing a label it’s federally prohibited from changing?
Judgment:
The Court ruled that federal law preempts state law when the manufacturer cannot independently change the label.
Under FDA rules, generic manufacturers must match the label of the brand-name equivalent.
Significance:
Created a distinction between brand-name and generic liability.
Left injured patients without recourse against generic manufacturers in many cases.
✅ 3. PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011)
Facts:
Plaintiffs developed a severe neurological disorder after taking a generic drug. They alleged inadequate warning labels.
Issue:
Are generic drug manufacturers liable for failure-to-warn under state law when they are prohibited from altering labels?
Judgment:
The Court held that state failure-to-warn claims are preempted by federal law for generic drugs.
Generic manufacturers cannot update labeling unilaterally under federal rules.
Significance:
Reinforced the preemption doctrine for generics.
Sparked public debate over labeling reform and fairness to generic drug users.
✅ 4. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht (U.S. Supreme Court, 2019)
Facts:
Patients sued Merck after developing femoral fractures from Fosamax. Merck argued the FDA had rejected their attempt to add a warning, so state law claims should be preempted.
Issue:
Who decides whether FDA rejection of a label change preempts state law — the judge or the jury?
Judgment:
The Court held that preemption is a legal question for judges, not juries.
Clarified that manufacturers must provide “clear evidence” that the FDA would have rejected a stronger warning to be shielded from liability.
Significance:
Narrowed the Wyeth exception to preemption.
Put pressure on manufacturers to fully document communications with the FDA.
✅ 5. In re Zyprexa Products Liability Litigation (E.D.N.Y., 2006)
Facts:
Thousands of plaintiffs sued Eli Lilly, alleging the antipsychotic drug Zyprexa caused diabetes and that the company withheld critical risk information from the public and the FDA.
Issue:
Did Eli Lilly fail to update its label in light of known risks?
Judgment:
The court found that internal documents showed the company had data suggesting a link between Zyprexa and diabetes but delayed updating the label.
Eli Lilly settled for over $1.2 billion.
Significance:
Highlighted how internal risk knowledge must be reflected in the label.
Demonstrated that delayed label updates can be grounds for mass tort liability.
✅ 6. T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (California Supreme Court, 2017)
Facts:
Children suffered developmental issues after their mother took a generic version of a Novartis drug during pregnancy. Novartis had sold the brand rights years earlier but plaintiffs alleged failure to update the label while it still held the NDA (New Drug Application).
Issue:
Can a former brand-name manufacturer be liable for injuries caused by a generic version it no longer controls?
Judgment:
The California Supreme Court held that brand-name manufacturers can be liable if they failed to update the label while they still owned the brand, even if the injury occurred later.
Significance:
Expanded possible liability for labeling omissions even after transfer of marketing rights.
Reinforced the ongoing duty to warn while the manufacturer still holds the NDA.
🧾 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Ruling | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wyeth v. Levine | 2009 | State failure-to-warn vs FDA approval | No preemption | Strengthens state law claims |
| Mensing v. PLIVA | 2011 | Generic labeling limits | Preempted | Limited generic liability |
| Bartlett v. Mutual | 2013 | Design defect for generics | Preempted | No liability for generic injuries |
| Albrecht v. Merck | 2019 | Who decides preemption? | Judges decide | Clarified evidentiary standard |
| Zyprexa Litigation | 2006 | Withholding risk data | Settled | Emphasized duty to update label |
| T.H. v. Novartis | 2017 | Liability after sale of brand | Allowed | Expanded brand-name duty |
📌 Conclusion
Pharmaceutical labeling law sits at the intersection of federal regulatory compliance, state tort law, and public health protection. Key principles include:
FDA approval is not an absolute shield from liability (Wyeth).
Generic manufacturers have limited flexibility under current FDA rules (Mensing, Bartlett).
Manufacturers have a duty to update labels based on emerging risks (Zyprexa, Novartis).
Courts are increasingly requiring clear documentation when preemption is claimed (Albrecht).
RELATED Blog
0 comments