The history of Medicare coverage of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) devices has not lacked for controversy despite the massive positive impact on outcomes. Ashwin Nathan, of Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, said a new analysis made clear that the expansion of centers qualified to perform TAVR procedures has been nearly all in high population density areas with an existing TAVR program, thus leaving out the still-forgotten rural patient.

The negotiations for the next device user fee agreement are well underway, and there are signs that the FDA is looking for a significant boost in user fees from device makers. However, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) told members of the MDMA that no member of Congress should believe that user fees relieve Congress of its responsibility “for funding the agency in a robust way.”

Researchers have gained new insights into what makes for transplantable livers – and what doesn’t. In a clinical trial of 12 livers, a team from Massachusetts General Hospital showed that both livers with high fat content and those without could be viable for transplantation.

Atricure Inc. has received the green light from the FDA for its Epi-Sense guided coagulation system with Visitrax technology to treat patients diagnosed with long-standing, persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). The device was previously cleared via a 510(k) for the coagulation of cardiac tissue, and is already available in the U.S. The FDA approval represents the first and only minimally invasive ablation therapy for the more than 3 million Americans with longstanding AF.

CMS has posted the draft Medicare inpatient rule for fiscal year 2022, replete with the usual controversies over reassignment of procedures under the Medicare diagnostic grouping system. One bit of good news is that the agency may carry over several expired new technology add-on payments (NTAPs) into the coming fiscal year, a move prompted by the difficulty of collecting claims data from fiscal year 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Twenty years after the first, exclusively white human genomes were fully sequenced, science finds itself in the same position as the rest of society: with the uncomfortable realization that old inequalities are often morphing, rather than disappearing. Vocal racists – scientists of the stripe of a James Watson – are by no means a thing of the past. But they are only the tip of the iceberg.

The FDA’s premarket review mechanisms for class II medical devices may strike some as little more than so much regulatory esoterica, and several courts have ruled that information about the 510(k) process is inadmissible during jury trials due to the possibility of sowing confusion among jurors. An appellate court in New Jersey has ruled that such an exclusion of evidence is prejudicial in a case involving surgical mesh manufactured by two device companies, however, opening a larger debate about the propriety of such exclusions in product liability litigation for medical devices.

The Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC) has been hard at work on the Make CAPA Cool program in an effort to beef up device makers’ corrective and preventive action (CAPA) programs. Kathryn Merrill, regulatory program director for Dublin-based Medtronic plc, said on an April 26 webinar that participants in the program have shaved CAPA times from 381 days to as few as 63 days, an improvement that industry hopes will ward off warning letters and product quality issues.

As part of a U.S. FDA evaluation of confirmatory trials for anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies, the agency’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) is being asked this week to consider whether three blockbuster biologics should continue to be available for certain cancer indications for which they received accelerated approval. At question is whether the data from the confirmatory trials for the Roche Group’s Tecentriq (atezolizumab), Merck & Co. Inc.’s Keytruda (pembrolizumab) and Bristol Myers Squibb Co.’s Opdivo (nivolumab) has proved sufficient benefit in particular indications and, if not, whether alternative or ongoing trials could do so.

The Supreme Court heard the case of Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic Inc., which takes up the question of assignor estoppel for patents, but the discussions that peppered the April 21 hearing lent little clarity as to how the nine justices will decide the case.