Food and drug law journal (FOOD DRUG LAW J)

Publisher: Food and Drug Law Institute (U.S.)

Current impact factor: 0.42

Impact Factor Rankings

2015 Impact Factor Available summer 2016
2014 Impact Factor 0.419
2013 Impact Factor 0.34
2012 Impact Factor 0.373
2011 Impact Factor 0.758
2010 Impact Factor 0.514
2009 Impact Factor 0.526
2008 Impact Factor 0.765
2007 Impact Factor 0.758
2006 Impact Factor 0.397
2005 Impact Factor 0.351
2004 Impact Factor 0.485
2003 Impact Factor 0.404
2002 Impact Factor 0.582
2001 Impact Factor 0.557
2000 Impact Factor 0.771
1999 Impact Factor 0.622
1996 Impact Factor 0.287
1995 Impact Factor 0.103
1994 Impact Factor 0.154
1993 Impact Factor 0.106
1992 Impact Factor 0.083

Impact factor over time

Impact factor

Additional details

5-year impact 0.47
Cited half-life >10.0
Immediacy index 0.00
Eigenfactor 0.00
Article influence 0.15
Website Food and Drug Law Journal website
Other titles Food and drug law journal
ISSN 1064-590X
OCLC 26135015
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The widespread availability of drugs for personalized medicine has been an aspiration since before the human genome was sequenced. Recently, there is renewed interest; personalized medicine is much in the news. Legislation has been considered with the goal of smoothing, shortening and incentivizing the approval process for therapeutic products. President Obama mentioned the need for new initiatives to achieve such goals in the State of the Union address. But most of these initiatives do not consider the fundamental changes that personalized medicine demands. It requires a statutory structure designed for the development of products applicable for small subpopulations that is very different from our current model which is designed for the development of products for large populations. The current approval process is purposely not designed to consider individual efficacy. It is designed to incentivize reduced variation in clinical trials rather than embracing variation. In addition, it is based on twentieth-century notions of disease focused on phenotype rather than on pathophysiologic pathways. Current foci on the development of companion diagnostics, orphan drugs and post-approval study are important but insufficient. FDA does not have the authority to require the type of standardization, clinical trial design and extensive data reporting and sharing that. is needed to achieve the goals for personalized medicine. In addition, FDA's current drug approval process is too lengthy and cumbersome to deal with the iterative responses personalized medicine entails. If we are serious about wanting to achieve these goals, we will need to entertain such fundamental changes in authority.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(2):289-314, ii-iii.

  • Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(2):237-42.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Synthetic biology (SB) is expected to create tremendous opportunities in a wide range of areas, including in foods, therapeutics, and diagnostics subject to regulatory oversight by the United States Food and Drug Administration. At the same time, there is substantial basis for concern about the uncertainties of accurately assessing the human health and environmental risks of such SB products. As such, SB is the latest in a string of emerging technologies that is the subject of calls for new approaches to regulation and oversight that involve "thinking ahead" to anticipate governance challenges upstream of technological development and adopting oversight mechanisms that are both adaptive to new information about risks and reflexive to performance data and feedback on policy outcomes over time. These new approaches constitute a marked departure from the status quo, and their development and implementation will require considerable time, resources, and reallocation of responsibilities. Furthermore, in order to develop an appropriate oversight response, adaptive or otherwise, there is first a need to identify the specific types and natures of applications, uncertainties, and regulatory issues that are likely to pose oversight challenges. This article presents our vision for a Productive Oversight Assessment (POA) approach in which the abilities and deficits of an oversight system are evaluated with the aim of enabling productive decisions (i.e., timely, feasible, effective for achieving desired policy outcomes) about oversight while also building capacity to facilitate broader governance efforts. The value ofPOA is two-fold. First, it will advance the development of a generalizable approach for making productive planning and decision-making about the oversight of any given new technology that presents challenges and uncertainties for any given oversight system whose policy goals are implicated by that technology. Second, this effort can enhance the very processes advocated under anticipatory and adaptive approaches by laying the groundwork for and providing valuable data to support future normative deliberations about the governance of emerging technologies.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(2):339-69, iii-iv.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Vaccines represent one of the greatest achievements of medicine, dramatically reducing the incidence of serious or life-threatening infectious diseases and allowing people to live longer, healthier lives. As life expectancy has increased, however, the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cancer, hypertension, atherosclerosis, and diabetes has increased. This shifting burden of disease has heightened the already urgent need for therapies that treat or prevent NCDs, a need that is now being met with increased efforts to develop NCD vaccines. Like traditional vaccines, NCD vaccines work by modulating the human immune system, but target cells, proteins or other molecules that are associated with the NCD in question rather than pathogens or pathogen-infected cells. Efforts are underway to develop NCD vaccines to address not only cancer and hypertension, but also addiction, obesity, asthma, arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn's disease, among others. NCD vaccines present an interesting challenge for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is tasked with approving new treatments on the basis of efficacy and safety. Should NCD vaccines be evaluated under the same analytic frame as traditional vaccines, or that of biologic drugs? Despite the borrowed nomenclature, NCD vaccines differ in important ways from infectious disease vaccines. Because infectious disease vaccines are generally administered to healthy individuals, often children, tolerance for adverse events is low and willingness to pay is limited. It is important to have infectious disease vaccines even for rare or eradicated disease (e.g., smallpox), in the event of an outbreak. The efficacy of infectious disease vaccines is generally high, and the vaccines convey population level benefits associated with herd immunity and potential eradication. The combination of substantial population-level benefits, low willingness to pay, and low tolerance for adverse events explains the need for the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, which encourages production and uptake by providing immunity from liability to industry and compensation to injured patients. These characteristics and considerations contrast sharply with those of NCD vaccines, raising the question of whether the term "vaccine" is appropriate for this new category of drugs. The article explores the emerging class of NCD vaccines, explains how they differ from traditional vaccines, and describes some regulatory implications of this innovative type of therapeutic.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(2):243-58, i.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently signaled its interest in subjecting clinical investigations that employ high-throughput gene sequencing, also called next-generation sequencing, to the agency's Part 812 investigational device exemption (IDE) regulation. Genome sequencing--for reasons explained in this article--blurs the line between categories of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) research that FDA traditionally has regulated and categories of research that FDA traditionally has not regulated. This blurring creates a risk that FDA may overstep its proper authority to regulate fundamental genomic and medical research. This article surveys the legal limits of FDA's authority'to subject genomic research to its IDE requirements. Section 1 explains that FDA has authority to regulate clinical investigations of devices, but is not authorized to regulate investigations that merely use devices to expand medical knowledge or to conduct fundamental research, unless special circumstances apply. Section 2 discusses the special circumstances that can expand or limit FDA's authority to regulate a specific clinical investigation, and Section 3 demonstrates these using an example. Section 4 explores concerns that arose in recent years about risks to human subjects in a certain type of investigation known as sponsor-investigator studies. In response to these concerns, FDA has suggested that it can regulate such studies in ways that threaten to expand FDA's regulation of research at academic medical centers beyond its proper scope. These concerns, while valid in some academic research contexts, seem inapposite in the setting of genomic research programs funded by responsible.entities such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Moreover, FDA's regulations do not. appear to support the proposition that FDA can regulate sponsor-investigator studies more expansively than it regulates other studies. Section 5 explores specific ways that NIH, clinical investigators, and FDA might work together to rationalize FDA's regulation of NIH-funded-genomic research.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(2):259-87, ii.

  • Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):7-9.

  • Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):11-24.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plays a unique role in protecting the public health and minimizing the risk of the distribution of unsafe or ineffective medicines in the United States. Perhaps equally as important for public health, however, is the need for healthcare professionals to be well informed about the benefits and risks of the medicines they prescribe. In this way, information sharing is critical to healthcare delivery. FDA's current interpretation of laws and regulations governing healthcare communications prohibits biopharmaceutical companies from sharing certain accurate, data-driven information about FDA-approved uses and medically accepted alternative uses of FDA-approved drugs with healthcare professionals. Often, these uses are the standard of care for good medical practice and are, accordingly, reimbursed under the federal healthcare programs. FDA has failed to describe adequately how manufacturers can share truthful and non-misleading information about such uses with healthcare professionals and formulary decision makers. This failure could impede medical innovation, negatively impact patient care, and increase healthcare costs. To improve public health, FDA should reform its current approach and provide manufacturers with a clear safe harbor on how to share data and information on both approved uses and medically accepted alternative uses of FDA-approved drugs with healthcare professionals. This Article describes key principles for a new regulatory paradigm.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):143-60, i-ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mobile applications provide limitless possibilities for the future of medical care. Yet these changes have also created concerns about patient safety. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate a much broader spectrum of products beyond traditional medical devices like stethoscopes or pacemakers. The regulatory question is not if FDA has the statutory. authority to regulate health-related software, but rather how it will exercise its regulatory authority. In September 2013, FDA published guidance on Mobile Medical Applications; in it, the Agency limited its oversight to a small subset of medical-related mobile applications, referred to as "mobile medical applications." For the guidance to be effective, FDA must continue to work directly with all actors--including innovators, doctors, and patients--as the market for mobile health applications continues to develop. This Article argues that FDA should adopt a two-step plan--a pre-market notification program and a mobile medical application database--to aid in the successful implementation of its 2013 guidance. By doing so, FDA will ensure that this burgeoning market can reach its fullest potential.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):161-85, ii.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article is a case study on how administrative agencies interact with each other in cases of shared regulatory jurisdiction. The theoretical literature on the topic of overlapping jurisdiction both (1) makes predictions about how agencies are expected to behave when they share jurisdiction, and (2) in recent iterations argues that overlapping jurisdiction can confer unique policymaking benefits. Through the lens of that theoretical literature, this article examines the relations between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the public health risks posed by mercury in fish. It concludes that the FDA-EPA case study (1) corroborates the extant theoretical accounts of how agencies behave in cases of overlapping jurisdiction, (2) supports the conclusion of the recent scholarship that overlapping jurisdiction can confer unique policy benefits, and (3) reveals a few wrinkles not given adequate treatment in the extant literature.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):101-42, i.

  • Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):25-37.

  • Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):93-9.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Internet crowdfunding, a new and increasingly popular method of raising capital to develop products and businesses, has recently come into conflict with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulation of medical devices. This Article examines the issues that arise when companies pre-sell medical devices via crowdfunding campaigns before gaining FDA approval of the devices. Because Internet crowdfunding has only been in use for a few years, little has been written about it academically, particularly about its interaction with FDA regulations. The rising interest in crowdfunding, coupled with the downturn in investment in the American medical device industry, make this a salient issue that is ripe for FDA review. This Article uses the crowdfunding campaign Scanadu, a medical device company, conducted in 2013 to raise money to develop its in-home diagnostic device, the "Scout," as a starting point for this analysis. Because it is extremely costly to develop a device and obtain FDA approval, medical device companies should be able to utilize crowdfunding to raise the necessary capital. However, because of the possible dangers medical devices pose, FDA needs to review the risks created by allowing companies to crowdfund medical devices and should issue guidance to help companies comply with FDA regulations while still allowing them to take advantage of the benefits of crowdfunding. This guidance should ensure the continued commitment to consumer safety that is at the core of FDA regulation.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):209-35, iii.

  • Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):5-6.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Iqbal ushered in a new federal pleading standard, requiring plaintiffs to state a "plausible" claim to relief before they can access discovery. Plausibility pleading, however, presents a unique burden for plaintiffs who have been injured by a Class III medical device. In Riegel, the Supreme Court held that state-law claims against device manufacturers are preempted unless they "parallel" federal requirements. However, the relevant federal requirements are located in the manufacturer's premarket approval agreement, which is confidential. Thus, it is nearly impossible for plaintiffs to allege a plausible claim against a Class III device manufacturer because they do not know what to plead in the first place. The Seventh Circuit tried to remedy this Catch-22 by lowering the pleading standards for parallel claims. However, its approach misapplies Twombly and Iqbal and overburdens device manufacturers. Instead of tinkering with pleading standards, this paper advocates a different approach. Congress should create a one-way fee-shifting mechanism that allows plaintiffs to access premarket approval agreements if they agree to pay the defendant's discovery fees (should their claim prove unsuccessful). Fee-shifting is a middle-ground approach that would better compensate plaintiffs without overdeterring device manufacturers.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):187-207, ii-iii.

  • Food and drug law journal 08/2015; 70(1):39-53.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pharmacogenomics is the branch of pharmacology which looks at the influence of genetic variation on drug response, connecting particular genetic markers with the effectiveness or safety of a drug. Pharmacogenomic products promise to improve medical treatment, lower health care costs, and make the new drug pipeline for FDA approval more efficient. In the last fifteen years, the FDA has approved pharmacogenomic drugs to treat a variety of cancers, HIV-AIDS, and coronary artery disease. Yet, progress in the field of pharmacogenomics has lagged behind the optimistic predictions of many researchers and policymakers. A lack of clear regulatory guidance dealing with pharmacogenomic products has been a major barrier to progress in the field. The FDA has, however, made some headway. In a series of guidance documents released between 2005 and 2011, the FDA has clarified much of its policy with respect to the development, approval, and labeling of pharmacogenomic products. Despite these efforts, many regulatory questions remain unanswered. This paper highlights a number of these regulatory gaps and provides recommendations to address them in a way which encourages increased development and clinical uptake of pharmacogenomic products.
    Food and drug law journal 08/2014; 69(2):273-314, ii.