United States: The Value Of A Letter: The Importance Of Dear Doctor Letters

Last Updated: February 6 2014
Article by Meta C. Danzey

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

With email, cell phones, text messages, and social media, writing letters has become a thing of the past. For drug manufacturers (and the lawyers who represent them), however, it is the very act of letter writing that may help avoid liability in a lawsuit regarding an alleged failure to warn. This letter/review highlights the importance of the form and, especially, the timeliness of Dear Doctor letters. So, before you chuck your letter writing skills (i.e., inside address, greeting, body, complimentary close, and signature), note the information below.

Requirements and Guidance for Dear Doctor Letters

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dear Healthcare Professional letters (also known as Dear Doctor letters) are pieces of correspondence mailed from a pharmaceutical product manufacturer or distributor to physicians and other healthcare professionals to convey important product safety information. 1 The federal regulation that governs Dear Doctor letters, in part, provides:

21 C.F.R. § 200.5 – Mailing of important information about drugs.

Manufacturers and distributors of drugs and the Food and Drug Administration occasionally are required to mail important information about drugs to physicians and others responsible for patient care. In the public interest, such mail should be distinctive in appearance so that it will be promptly recognized and read. The Food and Drug Administration will make such mailings in accordance with the specifications set forth in this section. Manufacturers and distributors of drugs are asked to make such mailings as prescribed by this section and not to use the distinctive envelopes for ordinary mail. The regulation goes on to set forth certain requirements dependent on whether the Dear Doctor letter is intended to convey new information about: 1) a significant hazard to health; 2) important changes in the package labeling; or 3) a correction in product advertising or labeling.2 Additionally, the regulation specifies the proper form for Dear Doctor letters to include placement of the drug manufacturer's name and address, the font type and size, etc.3 The regulation itself is concise, but the FDA also issued a guidance to assist industry and FDA staff to "improv[e] communication of important safety information" in Dear Doctor letters.4

Although the FDA's guidance contains suggestions and "should be viewed only as recommendations" instead of requirements, any pharmaceutical manufacturer that intends to send a Dear Doctor letter should become familiar with the FDA's guidance on the subject.5 Moreover, the pharmaceutical manufacturer should actually work with the FDA to prepare the Dear Doctor letter prior to engaging in any mass mailing.6 Indeed, the FDA actually "believes that effective communication of important new information in Dear Healthcare Provider letters can be best accomplished if FDA and the manufacturer work together" on such letters.7 The guidance further provides that "FDA encourages manufacturers to consult with the appropriate review division in the development of a Dear Healthcare Provider letter to ensure that the letter clearly and accurately reflects both the manufacturer's and FDA's understanding of the issue and the action required to address the issue."8 Working with the FDA on Dear Doctor letters provides an opportunity for the FDA to have input on the content of the letter, and manufacturers who do so may include a statement in the heading or in the body of the letter indicating that the FDA reviewed and agreed with the contents of the letter.9 Most pharmaceutical manufacturers and lawyers understand that compliance with the FDA's guidance and requirements does not necessarily shield one from litigation, but consultation with the FDA is also particularly important to "avoid the need to send a corrective letter in the event that FDA determines [...] that the content of the letter was somehow false or misleading."10

The Importance of a Timely Dear Doctor Letter

While the form and content of Dear Doctor letters are important, the Tietz v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Illinois state court case indicates the importance of timely sending the letters.11 The Tietz plaintiff alleged that Abbott, the manufacturer of a prescription immunosuppressant medication Humira®, failed to warn consumers or physicians that Humira could cause a rare infection known as histoplasmosis.12 The Tietz plaintiff specifically alleged that his wife suffered from the rare infection as a result of using Humira, and physicians were unable to diagnose the condition for weeks due to Abbott's failure to warn.13 Abbott submitted evidence that it had, in fact, mailed Dear Doctor letters advising of the rare infection in May 2010.14 The Tietz plaintiff argued, however, that his wife had already been hospitalized for 10 days before Abbott distributed the letters.15 Further, the Tietz plaintiff argued that the FDA had previously advised Abbott and other manufacturers — in September 2008 — to provide new information about the risks of the rare disease.16 In other words, the Tietz plaintiff argued that Abbott's Dear Doctor letter advising of the risk was "too little, too late," and apparently the jury agreed, as it awarded a $2.2 million verdict.17

In the Tietz case, the manufacturer had mailed a Dear Doctor letter advising of the risk at issue but to no avail. In fact, the manufacturer submitted evidence that it worked with the FDA to secure approval of the contents of the letter (i.e., the manufacturer had complied with the FDA's guidance). The manufacturer's arguments were insufficient to overcome plaintiff 's failure to warn allegation as the jury found that the Dear Doctor letter had not been sent in a timely manner. A cynical person may read the Tietz case and conclude that working with the FDA to mail a Dear Doctor letter lacks any value and is a complete waste of time. Any such way of thinking, however, seems to miss the point of the Tietz case. So, what is the point? The Tietz case seems to suggest that a Dear Doctor letter must be mailed within a timely period after a manufacturer learns of new safety information that should be shared with prescribing physicians and other healthcare providers. What remains unclear, however, is what period of time makes a Dear Doctor letter timely? Unfortunately, the answer is not in this letter, nor is it in the FDA's guidance, as the FDA only suggests "it is important to communicate new information promptly to healthcare practitioners involved in prescribing or dispensing a drug, or in care for patients who receive a drug."18

Other Cases re Timeliness of Dear Doctor Letters

Although the Tietz case and, more importantly, the FDA's guidance are silent on the time period that renders a Dear Doctor letter timely and prompt, a review of the case law reveals that the question is one for the jury. For example, in Rutz v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the Rutz plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufacturer of a cancer medication failed to warn about the risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) in a timely manner.19 Specifically, the Rutz plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufacturer waited 10 months after receipt of the first ONJ-related adverse event to notify the FDA of its intent to revise the product labeling to reflect reports of ONJ with the use of its product.20 Further, the Rutz plaintiff alleged that the defendant manufacturer waited 22 months before sending Dear Doctor letters to notify prescribing physicians of the label change.21 The defendant manufacturer submitted evidence that it had received the first ONJ-related adverse event nearly six months after the Rutz plaintiff began using its product, and it voluntarily changed the product warnings to reflect the risk of ONJ once it had collected adequate data.22 Plaintiff submitted, however, that the defendant manufacturer "knew about the risk of ONJ long before it amended its warning and sent the letters notifying doctors of the risk."23 The court found that the issues of adequacy and timeliness of the defendant manufacturer's Dear Doctor letter and revised warnings were questions of fact for the jury.24

In Winters and Baldwin v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the Baldwin plaintiff also alleged that the defendant manufacturer of a cancer medication failed to warn about the risk of ONJ in a timely manner.25 Specifically, the Baldwin plaintiff presented evidence that the defendant manufacturer "was slow to respond to an obvious prob lem and arguably tried to conceal or delay information concerning the risk of developing ONJ from the medical community and the public."26 The Baldwin plaintiff began using the product at issue in July 2003; however, the defendant manufacturer had been notified of the risk of ONJ with the use of its product in June 2003 and instructed members of its sales force not to mention the risk as early as August 2003.27 Although the defendant manufacturer changed the package insert to mention cases of ONJ in December 2003, it failed to send Dear Doctor letters until September 2004.28 Further, by that time, the Baldwin plaintiff had been using the product at issue for 14 months and had lost two teeth.29 The Baldwin plaintiff argued the "warnings were both insufficient and too late," and the jury agreed by returning a verdict for $225,000 on the failure to warn claim.30

A Medtronic multidistrict litigation (MDL) plaintiff made similar allegations against the manufacturer of implantable defibrillators for failure to warn in a timely manner.31 Evidence was presented that the defendant manufacturer learned in early 2003 that its defibrillators had a defective battery that caused the products to lose charge in days instead of years.32 The defendant manufacturer began receiving reports of premature battery depletion around February 2004, and it had received several reports by December 2004.33 In February 2005, which was two years after first learning of the issue, the manufacturer mailed Dear Doctor letters advising of the risk of battery depletion and product failure.34 The court found the evidence sufficient enough for a jury to determine whether the defendant manufacturer knew of the defect for a substantial period prior to advising of the defect.35


This letter serves as a friendly reminder of the value of Dear Doctor letters. In addition to providing valuable information to prescribers and other healthcare providers, Dear Doctor letters can help shield a manufacturer from failure to warn litigation. If case law is any indication, though, the timeliness of a Dear Doctor letter is as equally important as the contents of the letter. While there is no set amount of time to render a Dear Doctor letter timely, there is no time like the present to brush up on the case law and FDA's guidance and requirements for such letters to avoid a costly rewrite of the Tietz case.


1 Manual of Policies and Procedures 6020.10 "NDAs: 'Dear Health Care Professional' Letters," July 2003, at 2. .

2 21 C.F.R. § 200.5.

3 Id.

4 FDA's Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Dear Health Care Provider Letters: Improving Communication of Important Safety Information, November 2010. (Referenced in subsequent notes herein as "Guidance.") .

5 Guidance at 1.

6 Per the FDA's Guidance, those intending to distribute Dear Doctor letters electronically should also consult the FDA's Guidance for Industry on Using Electronic Means to Distribute Certain Product Information. Guidance at 5. See also .

7 Guidance at 2.

8 Id.

9 Guidance at 5.

10 Guidance at 2.

11 Milton Tietz et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., No. 12-L-002715, Ill. Cir. Cook Co. (May 2013).

12 See .

13 Id.

14 Id.

15 Id.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 Guidance at 2. Emphasis added.

19 Rutz v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., No. 12-CV-0026-MJR, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177779 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2012).

20 Id. at *15.

21 Id.

22 Id. at *12.

23 Id. at *13.

24 Id. at *15.

25 Winter and Baldwin v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 882 F.Supp.2d 1113 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 3, 2012).

26 Id. at 1118.

27 Id.

28 Id. at 1119.

29 Id. at 1120.

30 Id. at 1116, 1120.

31 In re Medtronic, Inc., Implantable Defibrillators Litigation, 465 F.Supp.2d 886 (D. Minn. Nov. 28, 2006).

32 Id. at 889.

33 Id. at 890.

34 Id.

35 Id. at 897.

Originally published in Pro Te: Solutio - Vol. 6 No. 4 November 2013

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions