The U.S. FDA’s latest draft guidance on discussions of off-label uses with doctors revisits a controversial subject that has previously migrated into the courts, and by some accounts, may do so yet again. In comments to the docket, the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) argued that this latest attempt to regulate commercial speech is another example of the agency’s “flagrant disregard for drug and device manufacturers’ free speech rights,” which WLF seemed to suggest is an actionable violation of the First Amendment.
The U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency finalized its plans for an overhaul of its med-tech regulatory system in a comprehensive approach that captures both in vitro diagnostics and artificial intelligence.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s inter partes review mechanism has drawn uneven reviews in the past decade or so and Dexcom Inc. has serious misgivings about an attempt by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. to use the process to invalidate Dexcom patents for continuous glucose monitors.
Switzerland’s regulatory authority for devices and drugs, Swissmedic, decided to revamp how it organizes its postmarket surveillance work, and is also seeking to stand up its medical product surveillance database.
The U.S. FDA might still be seen as the premier med tech regulatory entity in the world, but the agency is badly outnumbered by companies in the life sciences, which are pumping out artificial intelligence algorithms at a breathtaking pace. Further, the FDA must also avoid being lapped by industry in connection with the regulatory novelty known as the predetermined change control plan, a challenge that put the agency’s device center in scramble mode for essentially the entirety of calendar year 2023.
The U.S. FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health is no stranger to controversy, but the final guidance for clinical decision support (CDS) systems seems to have broken new ground in this regard.
Intravascular lithotripsy generally scores well for removal of calcification, but the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is offering only limited endorsement of this procedure for peripheral artery disease (PAD). NICE said one of the problems with the evidence is that this procedure is often conducted in conjunction with other procedures, and thus the agency will have to see more definitive evidence before an unequivocal endorsement is justified.
At first glance, the U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for evidentiary expectations for 510(k) implants seems to demand more rigor on these applications, but some in industry believe that several of these elevated requirements offer little or no commensurate benefit. Geeta Pamidimukkala of the Advanced Medical Technology Association (Advamed) said the draft would seem to require that manufacturers preemptively explain the exclusion of animal testing, a requirement she said creates more work for both industry and FDA without offering a meaningful benefit.
The U.S. FDA has commenced with a pilot program for companion diagnostics (CDx) for oncology therapies, which fulfills in part a 2014 agency guidance on the use of CDx. The FDA expects to enroll only nine reference drugs and the associated companion test, but the pilot program is part of the FDA’s controversial attempt to deal with lab-developed tests (LDTs), specifically those tests that are used to determine whether a patient is likely to respond to a particular oncology treatment.
The U.S. Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported that it and Philips Respironics have come to terms over allegations that the company violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by offering free CPAP masks to operators of sleep clinics
