PERTH, Australia – The Australian government is investing AU$79 million (US$56.75 million) in medical research and innovation projects to develop new drugs, devices and digital health technologies through its AU$20 billion Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF).

The FDA’s quarterly report on device user fee performance goals encodes a number of metrics, such as the rate at which PMA originals are cited for a major deficiency on the first review cycle. For premarket approval applications (PMAs) filed in fiscal year 2021 to date, the major deficiency rate on the first cycle is 86%, which would be tied for the fifth highest rate in two decades if that rate holds throughout the balance of the fiscal year.

The FDA’s July 27 webinar on medical device servicing and remanufacturing lent some clarity to the terms of a recent draft guidance on the subject, but there are several overarching policy concerns. The FDA’s Joshua Silverstein said on the webinar that the agency sees servicing as a type of manufacturing, a view that is contradicted by the Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance, which indicated earlier this year that third-party servicers are probably not subject to the regulations applied to manufacturers.

PERTH, Australia – Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) is proposing refinements to the regulation of devices that consist of substances introduced into the human body via a body orifice or applied to the skin.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously reported it would more tightly scrutinize mergers and acquisitions with an eye toward the impact on competition, and voted July 21 to expand its authority to review these activities. The agency also voted to eliminate restrictions by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) on servicing of their devices, thus putting both drug and device makers on alert that much more rigorous FTC enforcement has arrived.

The medical device development tool (MDDT) may come across as so much regulatory esoterica of little utility to most device makers, but that perspective might be unduly pessimistic. The FDA’s Edward Margerrison, director of the Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories, said the agency is intent on making MDDTs as ordinary as possible to allow device makers to do what they do best, which is to focus on making the best device they can.

The FDA’s draft guidance for the form and content of unique device identifiers (UDIs) may have lacked the controversy of some other policies, but the 2016 draft languished for five years even though only 10 comments appear in the docket. While the agency made some concessions regarding substantial edits of the draft, the final retains a need for data delimiters in the definition of “easily readable” plain text in UDIs, despite industry’s argument that this was not required in the agency’s UDI rulemaking.

PARIS – In France, the Haute Autorité de Santé, or National Health Authority (HAS), recently reported the entry into force of a new plan for "temporary" adoption under social security for innovative medical devices. The aim is to speed up access to the French insurance reimbursement market for medical technology addressing unmet or poorly met clinical needs in the context of serious or rare conditions, or which help disability in France.

There is “a wide gap” in the availability of pediatric medical devices that suggest most of these were developed for adolescents, according to a new study on FDA premarket approval applications (PMAs). The findings stem from an evaluation of 297 PMA documents for 149 high-risk devices, 68% of which include pediatric age indications. Pediatric medical devices have lagged behind their adult counterparts in terms of availability, options and innovation. The new findings add to the current relatively limited body of research considering the ample medical device space but are consistent with previous findings that most devices indicated for children are limited to those over 18 years of age.

The decision by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to suspend the Medicare Coverage of Innovative Technology (MCIT) rule a second time was controversial, but CMS’s Tamara Syrek Jensen vowed that the agency has made no final decision. Jensen acknowledged that the agency has not foreclosed a full-blown rescission of the MCIT proposal, a not-implausible outcome given the prospect that legislation in the works in the House Energy and Commerce Committee could render the rule moot.