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 FDA and device makers have finally wrapped up what may be the most contentious set of negotiations in the history of the device user fee program. Despite industrial antipathy to a recurrent doubling of user fee volumes, the fifth device user fee deal will provide the FDA with as much as $1.9 billion in user fees, roughly double the fees collected under the current agreement.
Though the Ukraine war has had an impact on the availability of medical devices and diagnostics, a number of companies based in the U.S. and Europe have announced measures to ensure their products will reach the war-torn nation. Device companies are donating millions to nongovernmental organizations for humanitarian assistance, while the Advanced Medical Technology Association (Advamed) said its member companies are tracking the situation and are eager to pitch in with desperately needed supplies and medical equipment.
The Biden administration has posted a request for information (RFI) about the conditions necessary for the in vitro diagnostic industry to sustain testing capacity for communicable disease outbreaks, although the letter commits to no specific actions. The Advanced Medical Technology Association responded to the RFI with the recommendation that the administration quickly commit to the provision of resources as a means of ensuring that “market volatility will no longer determine test availability.”
The U.S. Senate narrowly voted 50-46 to confirm Robert Califf as the next commissioner of the FDA, a critical outcome for an agency that has lacked a fully anointed commissioner for a year. Califf, who was previously FDA commissioner under President Barack Obama from February 2016 to January 2017, faces several challenges in the coming year, however, including the agency’s accelerated approval program for prescription drugs, which has added drag to the process of registering him as the new commissioner.
The FDA’s November 2021 draft guidance for contents of premarket submission for device software functions may have been a desperately needed update for a legacy 2005 guidance, but stakeholders see one glaring omission from the draft. Both the Advanced Medical Technology Association and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America pointed to the absence of sign-off by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) for the draft, a conspicuous omission because a combination product with software may include a drug regulated by CDER.
U.S. FDA regulation of combination products has always been complicated, and a new final guidance takes up the long-standing controversy over FDA review of these applications. The final guidance makes explicit the possibility that the individual components of a cross-labeled combination product will be reviewed separately, a concession that industry saw as critical to ensure that these applications can make it through the FDA gauntlet without undue delay.
The quinquennial user fee process for medical devices has always proven controversial, but the FDA and industry have missed a Jan. 15 deadline for an agreement to be presented to Congress. Recently, several members of the House and Senate inked a letter to the FDA about the missed deadline, a signal that the agency’s aspirations for a $2.5 billion user fee deal are in jeopardy.
The semiconductor industry has been hit hard by shortages of computer central processing units (CPUs) in recent months, but the persistence of these shortages has prompted a new response from industry. The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) said device makers are taking steps to ease the crunch, but that the Biden administration must take steps to ensure that medical technologies do not suffer from shortages, given the critical role played by devices in patient care.
The FDA’s device center has published two guidances dealing with patient engagement in relation to the conduct of clinical trials, including a final guidance for patient input into clinical trial design. The final guidance is mum, however, as to whether consultations with patient representatives constitutes a violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), a predicament the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) said may represent a serious legal hazard for device makers.
