On October 25, 2017, FDA released a critical draft guidance on the breakthrough medical device pathway established by the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”). The Draft Guidance For Industry, Breakthrough Device Pathway (“Draft Guidance”) reflects FDA’s proposal regarding the process by which a sponsor may seek a designation as a breakthrough device, assigning … Continue Reading
Michael Brown and Lisa Baird from our Life Sciences Health Industry Team will be presenting an hour-long AdvaMed Medical Technology Learning Institute webinar on “Top 10 Product Liability Issues” on July 20 at 1 p.m. ET. Product liability litigation is ever-evolving, and the plaintiffs’ bar is continually adapting its business model and litigation strategy against … Continue Reading
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance document clarifying its acceptance of medical device clinical data from studies conducted in countries other than the United States. The document is intended to provide guidance regarding the 2012 Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act § 1123, amending Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act § 569B, which codified FDA's policy of accepting scientifically-valid clinical data obtained from non-U.S. clinical studies in support of premarket submissions for medical devices.… Continue Reading
This post was written by Jillian W. Riley. Earlier this week, FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) published two separate draft guidance documents to advance the dual goals of FDA and industry to provide pathways for medical devices to reach the market quickly while ensuring the safety and efficacy of the product. The … Continue Reading
On November 14, 2011, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing called "Medical Devices: Protecting Patients and Promoting Innovation." The hearing focused on the continued viability of a medical device clearance process that clears for market medical devices that are "substantially equivalent" devices to previously cleared devices (also known as the "510(k) process," in reference to the statutory provision governing this process). Class III medical devices not cleared through this process must undergo the more rigorous and time-consuming Premarket Approval process. Among the issues considered were whether the 510(k) process sufficiently evaluated the safety of devices when clinical data is not necessarily always considered or part of the submission; whether high-risk medical devices should always be considered for the 510(k) process; the user fees for medical device applications; strengthening post-approval monitoring requirements; and the resources and needs for the FDA and the Center of Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) in reviewing, clearing and approving medical devices.… Continue Reading
On Friday, October 7, 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") (collectively, the "Agencies") announced they were soliciting nominations from sponsors of medical devices to participate in the Agencies' parallel review pilot program. The Agencies officially published a Federal Register notice announcing the program October 11, 2011 (the "Notice"), with an effective date of November 10, 2011, although the Agencies began accepting nomination submissions October 7.… Continue Reading
Notably absent from last month's Department of Health and Human Services Semiannual Regulatory Agenda was any indication of where the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS") and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") stand with respect to their notice with request for comments, issued last fall, on the proposed parallel review process for medical products. While CMS and FDA officials confirmed that they are currently reviewing comments submitted during the review period, they declined to speculate on when they intend to act. The comments submitted, however, provide insight into industry views on this important issue, including widespread discontent with the approval mechanisms currently available. We have undertaken a review of all of the comments submitted and extracted the eight main concerns cited in the following analysis.… Continue Reading
On January 19, 2011, FDA announced its long-awaited plans for revising the premarket notification (510(k)) process for medical devices to address the concerns that have been raised about the process by industry, consumers and Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) staff regarding the lack of predictability, consistency, transparency of the process, the inadequacy of the process to ensure the safety and effectiveness of products, and the lack of flexibility of the process to address changing technology and complexity. In 2009, CDRH established working groups to address these concerns. In August 2010, these working groups issued recommendations, which FDA analyzed and addressed as part of the announcement. FDA also sought public input and comments.… Continue Reading
FDA has issued a press release on its plan to reform the 510(k) medical device review process, outlining changes it intends to implement during 2011 including streamlining the "de novo" review process for certain innovative, lower-risk medical devices; clarifying when clinical data should be submitted in a premarket submission; and "establishing a new Center Science Council of senior FDA experts to assure timely and consistent science-based decision making." Undoubtedly there will be much more on this in the coming weeks and months.… Continue Reading
The GAO has issued a report entitled "Medical Devices: FDA Should Take Steps to Ensure That High-Risk Device Types Are Approved through the Most Stringent Premarket Review Process." The report was issued in response to a provision of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 mandating that GAO study the 510(k) process. The GAO found that in fiscal years 2003 through 2007, as part of its premarket review to determine whether devices should be permitted to be marketed in the United States, FDA:
reviewed 13,199 submissions for class I and II devices via the 510(k) process, clearing 11,935 (90 percent) of these submissions;
reviewed 342 submissions for class III devices through the 510(k) process, clearing 228 (67 percent) of these submissions; and
reviewed 217 original and 784 supplemental PMA submissions for class III devices and approved 78 percent and 85 percent, respectively, of these submissions.
Although Congress envisioned that class III devices would be approved through the more stringent PMA process, and the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 required that FDA either reclassify or establish a schedule for requiring PMAs for class III device types, the GAO concluded that this process remains incomplete. GAO found that in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 FDA cleared submissions for 24 types of class III devices through the 510(k) process. As of October 2008, 4 of these device types had been reclassified to class II, but 20 device types could still be cleared through the 510(k) process. FDA officials said that the agency is committed to issuing regulations either reclassifying or requiring PMAs for the class III devices currently allowed to receive clearance for marketing via the 510(k) process, but did not provide a time frame for doing so.
GAO recommends that FDA expeditiously take steps to issue regulations for class III device types currently allowed to enter the market via the 510(k) process by requiring PMAs or reclassifying them to a lower class. HHS agreed with GAO's recommendation.
The report is available at: http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-09-190.… Continue Reading