Linda A. Johnson
FDA requires strong amputation warning on sedative
TRENTON, N.J. — Makers of injected promethazine, a sedative also used to treat nausea and vomiting, are being required to put the strongest warning possible on the product because it can cause tissue damage leading to amputation, the Food and Drug Administration said Wednesday.
The drug, previously sold by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc. under the brand name Phenergan, was at the heart of a U.S. Supreme Court case this spring that ended in a ruling that consumers harmed by a medication approved by the FDA still have the right to sue the manufacturer.
Wyeth had appealed the case up to the Supreme Court after a Vermont woman named Diana Levine, who once played the guitar and piano professionally, sued because she had to have her right arm amputated after being injected with Phenergan. Levine’s lawsuit, which claimed she wasn’t sufficiently warned of the risks of using Phenergan, won her a $6.7 million jury award.
The FDA said Wednesday that makers of generic promethazine will have to put a “black box” warning at the top of the detailed package insert explaining that when the drug is administered incorrectly, it can damage skin severely, including causing gangrene.
The FDA said promethazine should be injected deep into muscle, never into an artery or under the skin and, when given intravenously, it should be done slowly and at a low concentration. That’s because the drug can leach out of a vein and seriously damage surrounding tissue.
Companies will have 30 days to provide the FDA with acceptable wording for the package insert. Otherwise, the FDA can order changes it deems appropriate.
The warning, which already is in the package insert but not highlighted in a box outlined in black, also is being sent to doctors.
Promethazine has been on the market since 1956. FDA said reports and medical literature and reports the agency received about side effects from the drug showed it has been linked to an unspecified number of gangrene cases requiring amputation.
In a 6-3 decision in March, the Supreme Court rejected Wyeth’s claim that federal approval of Phenergan and its warning label should have shielded the company from lawsuits like Levine’s.
Prior to that, business groups had aggressively pushed for such limits on lawsuits through the doctrine of “pre-emption” — the idea that federal regulation trumps rules that might differ from state to state.
The Supreme Court had largely agreed, ruling in the prior term that FDA approval shields medical devices from most lawsuits.
Related News
Democrats seek to override Supreme Court ruling that raised bar for proving age discriminationOctober 7th, 2009 Age bias bill responds to Supreme Court rulingWASHINGTON — Democrats want to counter a recent Supreme Court ruling that makes it harder for older workers to prove they are the victims of age discrimination. The Senate Judiciary Committee is hearing testimony Wednesday on a bill that would effectively nullify a high court decision that changed the interpretation of age bias laws.
Supreme Court declines to review constitutionality of Fla. Pledge of Allegiance lawOctober 5th, 2009 Court won't review Fla. Pledge of Allegiance lawWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal to review a Florida law that requires public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each day unless they have their parents' written permission excusing them.
Russian news agencies: Supreme Court orders new investigation of Politkovskaya killingSeptember 3rd, 2009 Report: New probe ordered in Politkovskaya killingMOSCOW — Russian news agencies are reporting that the Supreme Court has ordered a further investigation into the killing of journalist and Kremlin critic Anna Politkovskaya. State-run RIA-Novosti and ITAR-Tass say the court on Thursday reversed the ruling of a lower court that rejected a request by Politkovskaya's children for further investigation.
Firefighter says appeals court ruling deprived him of his rightsJuly 16th, 2009 Firefighter denounces Sotomayor rulingWASHINGTON — A Connecticut firefighter who lost an appeals court ruling by Sonia Sotomayor has told a Senate panel that in his line of work, advancement has to be determined by skill and qualifications. Frank Ricci was among a group of white New Haven firefighters who were denied a promotion when city tossed out the results of an exam because not enough minorities had scored well enough to be promoted.
Sotomayor defends ruling in case of firefighters who filed reverse discrimination suitJuly 14th, 2009 Sotomayor: Ruling in firefighter case was narrowWASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has defended her ruling against white firefighters who accused the New Haven, Conn., government of engaging in reverse discrimination against them. At the prompting of Democratic Sen.
White House says high court's firefighters ruling shows Sotomayor follows judicial precedentJune 29th, 2009 White House: Court ruling shows nominee not biasedWASHINGTON — Spinning a Supreme Court decision in its favor, the White House said Monday that the justices' reversal of a ruling that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge proves that she follows judicial precedent. The high court ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race.
Supreme Court to rule in discrimination case, say goodbye to Souter in term wrap-upJune 29th, 2009 Supreme Court bidding goodbye to SouterWASHINGTON — It's Justice David Souter's last day on the Supreme Court and he'll be ruling on a case familiar to the woman nominated to replace him. It's a reverse discrimination case filed by white firefighters in New Haven, Conn.
NFL wants court to grant it wider latitude in antitrust matters concerning league merchandiseJune 27th, 2009 NFL asks Supreme Court to grant it wider latitudeWASHINGTON — In the legal equivalent of running up the score, the National Football League is going to the Supreme Court in search of a bigger victory in an antitrust tussle over team merchandise than it already won from a lower court. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday whether it will hear the case, which involves American Needle Inc.'s challenge to the league's exclusive contract for selling headwear such as caps and hats with team logos on them.
NFL goes to Supreme Court for bigger legal victory in antitrust case involving merchandiseJune 27th, 2009 NFL asks for court ruling on merchandise caseWASHINGTON — In the legal equivalent of running up the score, the National Football League is going to the Supreme Court in search of a bigger victory in an antitrust tussle over team merchandise than it already won from a lower court. The Supreme Court could decide as early as Monday whether it will hear the case, which involves American Needle Inc.'s challenge to the league's exclusive contract for selling headwear such as caps and hats with team logos on them.
Supreme Court to decide whether suspects must be told lawyer can be present during questioningJune 22nd, 2009 Court to tackle clarity of Miranda warnings againWASHINGTON — "You have the right to remain silent." Most people only hear those words while watching cop shows on TV. They usually zone out for the rest of the now familiar Miranda warning to people under arrest.
Supreme Court issues rulings ThursdayJune 18th, 2009 Supreme Court issues rulings ThursdayWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is meeting at Thursday to issue rulings in some of its 14 remaining cases. The justices are likely to finish their work for the summer by the end of the month.
Supreme Court says Ohio gets chance to reinstate convicted killer's death sentenceJune 1st, 2009 High court rules for Ohio in death penalty caseWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the state of Ohio should have another chance to sentence a convicted killer to death, despite a previous factual finding that the man is mentally retarded. The court on Monday said a federal appeals court acted too quickly in throwing out the death sentence for Michael Bies, after the Supreme Court barred execution of mentally retarded people in 2002.
Contempt plea against Modi in Supreme CourtMay 1st, 2009 NEW DELHI - A contempt of court petition was filed against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi Friday for his reported comments on the Supreme Court order of a probe into his role during the communal violence of 2002. Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, acting as amicus curiae in cases relating to the Gujarat violence before the Supreme Court, filed the plea seeking contempt of court proceeding against the Bharatiya Janata party (BJP) leader.
Supreme Court gives measured OK to FCC 'fleeting expletives' policyApril 28th, 2009 FCC 'fleeting expletives' policy in _ for nowWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the government could threaten broadcasters with fines over the use of even a single curse word on live television, yet stopped short of ruling whether the policy violates the Constitution. The court, in a 5-4 decision, refused to pass judgment on whether the Federal Communications Commission's "fleeting expletives" policy is in line with First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
Supreme Court gives tentative OK to regulation of use of even a single curse word on TVApril 28th, 2009 Supreme Court OKs regulation of language on TVWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is giving tentative approval to government regulation of the use of even a single curse word on live television. But the court, in a 5-4 decision Tuesday, is refusing to pass judgment on whether the Federal Communications Commission's "fleeting expletives" policy is in line with First Amendment guarantees of free speech.
Loading ...