The FDA’s November 2021 draft guidance for contents of premarket submission for device software functions may have been a desperately needed update for a legacy 2005 guidance, but stakeholders see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.

The FDA’s device center has repeatedly asserted that its goal is to ensure that patients in the U.S. will always have first access to the latest and greatest in med tech, and a new priority document resurrects that goal in principle. However, the latest strategic plan qualifies that metric as half of manufacturers of novel technologies bringing their devices to the U.S. market “first, or in parallel with other major markets” by the end of 2025.

With the evidence that sex and gender both significantly affect the course of many diseases and the function of medical devices rapidly mounting, the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) released its strategic plan to better understand these differences.

The FDA’s device center has posted its annual fiscal year guidance agenda, and there are several carry-over items from fiscal 2021. The most conspicuous element of the FY 2022 agenda may be that a draft guidance for change control for artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms rates an entry on the B list rather than the A list, suggesting that the draft is not likely to emerge any time in the next 12 months.

The FDA and industry are deep into the negotiations over the next device user fee, with the usual array of concerns such as premarket program performance and the volume of user fees. Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), has once again given voice to a perceived need for a significant boost in user fee volumes in an interview with a major trade association, suggesting that device makers can expect a significant uptick in fees for PMAs and 510(k)s in the years ahead.

The FDA responded on Thursday to longtime industry calls for the agency to clarify the distinction between the “serving” and “remanufacturing” of a medical device with new draft guidance to provide consistency and a better understanding of the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The 35-page document details its current thinking on the distinction.

With the advent of wearable digital health technologies, patient-generated health data (PGHD) will play an increasingly central role in evidence generation for medical device companies. Speakers on a recent FDA workshop advised that there are several barriers to the use of PGHD for evidence generation, however, such as the perennial headache of data interoperability and a new twist on the question of patient trust, problems that are likely to plague the field for the foreseeable future.

The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued a new document on June 8 responding to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) call for position papers to fulfill the President’s Executive Order on improving the federal government’s cybersecurity. It details how CDRH is planning to do its part to advance the shared goal within medical devices.

With the next user fee agreement negotiations underway, device makers are not keen on a substantial hike in fee volumes. Nonetheless, Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, has proposed a total product life cycle (TPLC) advisory function for the next user fee agreement, something he said would bring more predictability to industry and allow the agency to interact much more routinely with device makers.

The COVID-19 pandemic’s direct and indirect toll on the human condition is beyond calculation, but the effect on FDA regulatory activity is easier to assess. The problem for device makers is that a number of draft and final guidances are stuck in a pandemic-driven regulatory limbo, which seemingly guarantees that some compliance and product development efforts will run afoul of the agency’s expectations and potentially delay a product’s market access.