Regulatory overhauls are never a simple affair, but the med tech industry ran into an amorphous, ennui-inducing mess in dealing with the EU Medical Device Regulation almost immediately. Even though the underlying legislation passed in 2017, the MDR impasse continued to impede innovation on the continent – a problem that might be only partly resolved in 2025.
The device industry is extraordinarily dependent on administrative activity where Medicare coverage is concerned, and this was exceptionally evident in 2024 when software and digital health coverage policies remained bogged down.
2024 was a critical year for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health and included a smooth transition in leadership, but it was not without controversy. The agency triggered not one but two lawsuits over the final rule for regulation of lab-developed tests, a problem that promises to distract the agency throughout 2025 and potentially beyond.
The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for reporting of deviations from clinical study protocols lends some insight as to the definition of a deviation, but the agency highlights some concerns about related compliance activities.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no novelty for medical technology, but 2024 saw an interesting series of events in this area from across the globe. While some of these developments portend immediate regulatory clarity, some are harbingers of continued regulatory flux in 2025 and beyond.
The U.S. FDA has issued a second report in connection with device software functions, which includes surveillance data for clinical decision support (CDS) tools. While the report lists three events that qualify as adverse events, the FDA offered no information that would provide an adverse event rate for CDS products.
Device makers doing business in the U.S. have had a much more stable regulatory regime than has been true for companies in other jurisdictions, but that will shift somewhat in 2025. Brynn Stanley of Gardner Law told BioWorld that manufacturers should get busy with the U.S. FDA-mandated do-over of their quality management systems as the compliance deadline of February 2026 does not generally permit procrastination.
The U.S. FDA’s newest draft guidance for dealing with medical product misinformation might seem to signal a cooperative attitude toward misinformation on the agency’s part, but regulatory attorney Daniel Kracov told BioWorld that the disincentives for doing so might still outweigh the incentives despite the reworked draft guidance.
The U.S. FDA posted another early advisory, this time for the Mini PCNL devices by Trokamed GmbH. The agency noted that these devices should not be used for suction and irrigation of surgical sites, a use for which the device was not cleared in the first place.
The U.S. FDA’s authority was challenged on a number of occasions over the past few decades, but the rate is likely to pick up as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled recently that the agency cannot take judicial deference for granted any longer. Chad Landmon of the D.C. office of Polsinelli told BioWorld that future litigation against the FDA may extend even to sub-regulatory guidance thanks to the outcome in the case of Loper Bright – a scenario in which industry might carve out a few significant wins in the coming year.
