The impact of MRI procedures on medical devices has been the subject of regulatory concern for better than a decade, but the FDA needed until 2019 to craft a guidance that deals with testing and labeling for such considerations. The final guidance offers several tweaks and adjustments to the 2019 draft, but ignores several requests made by industry, including a request that the final not rely on a clinically relevant worst-case scenario when evaluating the potential for device heating.

The FDA’s approval for Johnson & Johnson (J&J) of Rybrevant (amivantamab-vmjw) not only brings the first treatment for adults with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumors bear EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, but also sets a high overall response rate bar for other developers in the space.

The FDA’s November 2019 two-day hearing regarding the use of metals in medical devices generated at least one actionable recommendation, namely that manufacturers disclose all materials used in devices in product labels. The agency has reacted to that recommendation in the form of a discussion paper that proposes to require that product labels provide a deep level of detail regarding the materials found in the device, a notion that received the backing of industry during the November 2019 hearing.

Motus GI Holdings Inc. received FDA 510(k) clearance to use its Pure-Vu system in upper gastrointestinal endoscopies, expanding the system’s indications from use only in colonoscopies. Pure-Vu removes blood, blood clots and debris from the GI tract, allowing endoscopists to see sources of bleeding and other issues while leaving the endoscope's working channel available for other uses.

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 FDA’s breakthrough devices program encodes a number of policy objectives for the agency, but industry might see the program principally as a vector for faster time to market. However, Janice Hogan, partner at Hogan Lovells US LLP, said device makers might want to consider that the greater benefit is reducing regulatory uncertainty, not beating the typical FDA review clock.

The FDA’s legal authority to regulate lab-developed tests (LDTs) has come into question on several occasions in a number of venues, and the issue is enjoying new life yet again thanks to more activity on Capitol Hill. While two competing pieces of legislation are back in play, the most critical question may be whether the FDA has any authority left at all after the August 2020 rescission letter from the Department of Health and Human Services.