The attempt by the U.S. FDA to harmonize its Quality System Regulation (QSR) with ISO 13485 promises to be a difficult slog, but Jeff Shuren, director of the agency’s device center, said the agency is flexible on the proposed one-year implementation deadline. However, Shuren also noted that the draft rule would not be converted into a final rule at any point during the current calendar year, leaving device makers with an extended term of uncertainty.
The U.S. FDA has finally unveiled the fifth edition of the device user fee program (MDUFA V), and some of the performance measures remain unchanged from MDUFA IV, such as that the FDA will process 95% of 510(k) filings within 90 days.
The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on inspections of drug and device manufacturing sites is a matter of record, but the agency says it is on track to resume inspections for high-risk considerations. However, the FDA also said it will likely make more extensive use of virtual inspection tools going forward, a development that may ease some of the operational interruptions engendered by conventional on-site inspections.
The U.S. FDA notice regarding device risk classification proposes to eliminate premarket notification requirements for several device types, a welcome development for industry. However, Amanda Johnston, senior attorney at Gardner Law PLLC, of Stillwater, Minn., told BioWorld that there is a question regarding the provenance of the document, as it fails to identify any FDA staff member. In addition, the notice omits several device types that are solid candidates for down-classification.
The U.S. FDA’s device center may still be grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the remainder of fiscal year 2021, but that does not mean other considerations have disappeared. The FDA’s Erin Keith said the agency will keep working on a major overhaul of the quality systems regulation (QSR) but will also work toward expanding industry’s use of advanced manufacturing technologies, such as additive manufacturing.
Patient perspectives on medical device development are becoming much more central to the U.S. FDA’s regulation of devices, thus the August 2020 draft guidance for selection of patient-reported outcome instruments for device evaluation.
Patient perspectives on medical device development are becoming much more central to the U.S. FDA’s regulation of devices, thus the August 2020 draft guidance for selection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for device evaluation. However, the draft is sufficiently vague on the question of when an existing PRO can be tweaked without an entirely new validation study to prompt the Advanced Medical Technology Association (Advamed) to press the agency for more clarity on that point.
The U.S. FDA’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic may have got off to a rocky start, but the agency’s device center has changed course rather quickly several times in recent months. Tim Stenzel, director of the FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, said on the latest COVID-19 town hall that the push is now on several relatively novel points of emphasis, including high-throughput testing, a technology that may prove critical to corralling the SARS-CoV-2 virus when flu season arrives later this year.
The U.S. FDA's overhaul of the 510(k) program continues apace with the recent final guidance for the special 510(k) mechanism. However, a member of the FDA staff said clerical errors account for a conspicuous number of conversions of these applications to traditional 510(k)s than any other problem. The agency posted the final guidance for the special 510(k) program in September with features seen in the draft that drew opposition from device makers.
BOSTON – The FDA's Center for Device and Radiological Health (CDRH) released draft guidance on Monday aimed at encouraging the use of patient input in medical device clinical trials and helping sponsors understand how they can use patient engagement to improve the design and conduct of investigations.
