FDA Targets Drugmakers with Letters in a Marketing Crackdown

Note* - All images used are for editorial and illustrative purposes only and may not originate from the original news provider or associated company.

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...
- Advertisement -

After the FDA went on to state that it was taking on what it has understood to be misleading or deceptive direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads, the floodgates have gone on to open, and how?

In the first few days post the announcement, the agency went ahead and publicly shared only one of what it said happened to be thousands of letters informing the drugmakers of their alleged violations pertaining to federal pharma marketing rules – a sort of missive from the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) that took aim at a TV commercial for the self-administered FluMist vaccine from AstraZeneca.

Around midday on September 16, however, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) uploaded a flood of both warning letters, which were serious as well as untitled letters for public perusal.

It is well to be noted that the first batch comprises 40 untitled letters, all dated September 9, the same day the Trump administration unveiled its crackdown plans, and were inked by George Tidmarsh, M.D., Ph.D., the CDER Director.

Apparently, as FDA targets drugmakers, most of which received not one but multiple letters. At the top of the untitled heap happened to be five for AstraZeneca and another for its Alexion rare-disease-focused subsidiary, as well as three each for Boehringer Ingelheim, UCB, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, and Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis.

Interestingly, Takeda, AbbVie, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, as well as Supernus Pharmaceuticals, each received a couple of letters, while Sanofi and Pfizer were among the ones who received one each.

It is worth noting that each of the untitled letters goes on to argue that a specific DTC ad looks to be false or misleading and hence, in a way, misbrands the drug it’s advertising. The companies are now given 15 days to formally respond to such allegations.

A scolding pertaining to one of the Kesimpta ads, from Novartis, for instance, takes issue with its attention-grabbing visuals, which may well distract from the major statement in terms of risks and side effects, along with the claim of the commercial that the multiple sclerosis med can be taken at home in just a minute a month, which, as per Tidmarsh, happens to be oversimplifying the steps that are actually involved.

On the other hand, all three of the letters to Boehringer concern a different one of the musical theater-themed Jardiance ads from the company. In each of the missives, the FDA went on to criticize the commercials for having fast-paced and compelling visuals with frequent scene changes and also background music for, in a way, stealing the attention of the viewers away from drug safety information.

It is well to be noted that the marketing-related warning letters, which were uploaded on September 9, number almost 70, although the majority target online pharmacies as well as the sellers of compounded drugs for which Marty Makary, M.D., the FDA Commissioner, pledged in a recent JAMA op-ed to extend the marketing crackdown due to their brazen advertisements of drugs having only the upsides mentioned.

Notably, eight of the warning letters that were sent to the pharma companies include three for Eli Lilly, two for Aytu BioPharma, and one each for Novo Nordisk, Alora Pharmaceuticals, and CSL Behring, the last of which did come from CBER and not the CDER, as it happens to concern Hizentra, the biologic med.

The warning letter to Novo is related to the Oprah Winfrey TV special on GLP-1 drugs, which was aired in 2024. The broadcast went on to feature a Novo executive along with a pair of doctors who were both paid consultants when it came to Big Pharma. As per the FDA, the special happened to include many representations pertaining to the benefits of Ozempic, Wegovy as well as Victoza that were made by Novo Nordisk representatives; however, it omits the significant risk information and in a way minimizes the risks of such drug products.

The three warning letters that were sent to Lilly, meanwhile, concern its own GLP-1 products, namely, Zepbound as well as Mounjaro. One happens to take aim at the same Oprah-led broadcast, which also had certain Lilly representatives. The other two are concerning the local TV news segments within Oklahoma City and Dayton, Ohio, each of which happened to be labeled as being sponsored by the company and at the same time featured a reporter interviewing the two company executives on Zepbound. Both the segments, as per the FDA, fail to actually communicate any risk information pertaining to the drug.

As for the untitled letters, the companies which were receiving the warning letters had been given 15 days to respond, with the FDA warning that the failure to address adequately any violations may well result in a legal action without any sort of further notice, which may include, without limitation, seizure and, for that matter, even injunction.

It is worth noting that the 40 newly released untitled letters go on to mark the first posted by the CDER since April 2025 and sent the annual total skyrocketing as compared to recent years. Apparently, the regulator sent out five untitled letters last year, four in 2023 and only three in 2022. The warning letters for perceived marketing violations have been fewer and farther between, with just one going out in 2023 and nothing in 2024.

Interestingly, as FDA targets drugmakers, it recently said that it was in the process of sending thousands of letters warning them to delist their misleading ads, with 100 more severe cease-and-desist notices for the ones who it deemed to be airing certain deceptive ads.

In the September 12, 2025, op-ed, Makary went on to criticize the weak enforcement of the agency, which has already seen its annual warning letters’ number dwindle in the recent decades.

He had written that the enforcement trajectory of the FDA goes on to demonstrate a regulatory collapse through the last 25 years and that they are taking action so as to correct the regulatory failure which has existed for decades.

Never miss a pharmaceutical headline

The pharmaceutical industry moves fast – stay on top of it with our must - read briefings.

  • The top pharma and life sciences stories, straight to your inbox
  • The biggest news, features, interviews, and analysis
  • Dedicated coverage of the key developments driving the global pharmaceutical sector

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access the Media Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Latest stories

Related stories

Billerud Introduces New Pharmaceutical Packaging Option

Billerud has officially introduced PharmaKraft, a specialized fibre-based packaging...

AstraZeneca Advances AI Drug Discovery Deal with insitro

AstraZeneca has inked a billion-dollar AI drug discovery partnership...

Managing Quality and Regulatory Risks in Pharmaceutical Technology Transfer

Technology transfer moves more than manufacturing instructions. It moves process knowledge, supplier dependencies, labeling requirements, packaging specifications, and the evidence needed to demonstrate control. For medical device manufacturers, including those supporting drug-device combination products, these interfaces can become recurring sources of compliance gaps during site transitions, acquisitions, and remediation. The central problem is often not a missing procedure. It is a quality system that allows connected activities to change independently. A label revision may be approved while packaging artwork, supplier instructions, or production-system data still reflect an obsolete version. Staying inspection-ready requires manufacturers to manage these dependencies as one controlled system. Why Compliance Gaps Keep Recurring Findings are treated as documentation defects Revising a procedure can resolve an immediate discrepancy without changing the behavior that caused it. If unclear decision rights, weak escalation, or ineffective training remain, the same failure may surface elsewhere. Corrective and preventive action should distinguish the observed finding from its underlying cause and establish how effectiveness will be demonstrated. Ownership is divided across connected functions Quality, Regulatory Affairs, labeling, packaging engineering, operations, suppliers, and digital-system owners often maintain separate workflows. Each team may complete its assigned task while an interface remains uncontrolled. For example, changing an instruction for use can affect packaging configuration, translations, technical documentation, inventory disposition, and release controls. Transitions expose unresolved weaknesses Acquisitions and site transfers can introduce conflicting procedures, incomplete knowledge transfer, or different assumptions about validated processes. Regulatory changes add further demands. When these events coincide with CAPA or change-control backlogs, teams may prioritize administrative closure over risk reduction. Without a coordinated impact assessment, local fixes can create new gaps downstream. Establish the Regulatory Baseline Inspection readiness starts with knowing which requirements apply to the product, activity, and market. Pharmaceutical, device, and combination-product obligations are not interchangeable; transfer planning should identify the applicable requirements rather than assume one quality framework covers every operation. According to FDA’s Quality Management System Regulation overview and FAQs, the QMSR became effective on February 2, 2026, incorporates ISO 13485:2016 by reference, and introduced the updated device inspection process under Compliance Program 7382.850. ISO 13485 certification does not exempt a manufacturer from FDA inspection or guarantee compliance with FDA requirements. For devices marketed in the European Union, Regulation (EU) 2017/745, Annex I, Section 23, provides the primary requirements for information supplied with devices, including labels and instructions for use. Teams should assess the applicable provisions alongside relevant language, product-specific, and market requirements. A labeling review should therefore evaluate required content and consistency with the device’s intended purpose and supporting documentation—not merely artwork accuracy. How to Identify the Real Gaps Begin with a cross-functional assessment that follows actual product and information flows. Select representative transfers, label changes, supplier changes, and CAPAs, then trace each from initiation through implementation and effectiveness review. Map dependencies: Identify affected specifications, suppliers, packaging components, systems, validation activities, and training. Compare records with practice: Check whether approved procedures match what operators and reviewers actually do. Test traceability: Follow a requirement through technical documentation, labeling, production instructions, and release evidence. Examine recurrence: Look for repeated deviations, reopened actions, overdue changes, and findings shared across sites. Assess capacity: Determine whether qualified owners have enough time and authority to complete corrective work. Prioritize gaps by potential patient or user harm, regulatory impact, likelihood of recurrence, and detectability. Document the rationale; an old overdue item is not automatically more important than a newly identified high-risk weakness. Align Quality, Labeling, Packaging, and Change Control Create a coordinated remediation plan with one accountable owner for each action, named contributors, acceptance criteria, and required evidence. Separate immediate containment from systemic correction. Containment might prevent obsolete labels from being issued; correction might redesign approval and implementation controls so obsolete versions cannot return. Use change control as the integration point. Before approval, evaluate effects on regulatory submissions or notifications, technical documentation, supplier controls, packaging performance, validation, electronic master data, inventory, and training. Record both identified impacts and justified decisions that particular activities are unaffected. During technology transfer, define readiness gates before production or release responsibilities move. These should address the transfer of process knowledge, acceptance criteria, receiving-site capability, required qualification or validation, approved documents, and personnel competence. The appropriate evidence depends on the product and process; a generic checklist cannot replace a documented assessment. Finally, verify implementation where the work happens. Confirm that current instructions are available, suppliers received approved requirements, systems contain correct versions, and affected personnel can perform their tasks. A signed approval is not evidence that every downstream change took effect. Mistakes That Undermine Inspection Readiness Closing CAPAs on task completion alone: Effectiveness checks should test whether the underlying failure has been controlled. Updating labels in isolation: Assess packaging, supplier, system, documentation, and inventory consequences. Counting closures instead of evidence: Dashboards need defensible records behind their status indicators. ...

State of API & Peptide CDMO Capacity

Pharmaceutical companies planning peptide or complex small-molecule launches are...

Subscribe

- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from any location or device.

Media Packs

Expand Your Reach With Our Customized Solutions Empowering Your Campaigns To Maximize Your Reach & Drive Real Results!

– Access theMedia Pack Now

– Book a Conference Call

– Leave Message for Us to Get Back

Translate »