In a May 8 Senate hearing, U.S. FDA commissioner Bob Califf described the agency’s advisory committee process as a useful source of information, but Califf reassured members of the Senate that the FDA is not intent in doing away with advisory hearing votes altogether.
The U.S. FDA finalized a guidance for third-party servicing of medical devices, which helps to clarify the distinction between servicing and remanufacturing of a device. However, the most significant change from the draft guidance is that the agency openly declared that it will inspect these independent services organizations, a dramatic shift from the agency’s previous formal stance on these entities.
It’s no surprise to hear that industry’s view of a device’s inherent risk differs from that of the U.S. FDA, a disparity that came to surface in a new citizen petition from Metaltronica SpA of Pomezia, Italy. The company petitioned the agency to down-classify digital breast tomosynthesis system to class II, a move that would align the risk classification with full-field digital mammography and ease the premarket path for future digital breast tomosynthesis applications.
In a May 8 Senate hearing, U.S. FDA commissioner Bob Califf described the agency’s advisory committee process as a useful source of information, but Califf reassured members of the Senate that the FDA is not intent in doing away with advisory hearing votes altogether.
The U.S. FDA and industry have been in scramble mode for some time to address the Environmental Protection Agency’s actions on ethylene oxide, but some manufacturers must also deal with other regulators’ perceptions of what constitutes an acceptable method of sterilization.
Mexico’s Federal Commission for Protection Against Sanitary Risk (COFEPRIS) has released a draft proposal that would overhaul the 2008 version of the rule for device labeling, a document that includes several key proposed reforms.
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have generated a tsunami of popular dystopian musings, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has its own concerns about AI’s impact on intellectual property.
The U.K. Medicines and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is among the regulators across the globe that are scrambling to keep pace with artificial intelligence (AI) in medical devices, releasing an April 30, 2024, paper on its own approach. One of the key considerations in this paper is that MHRA expects to up-classify some AI-enabled device software functions in its ongoing regulatory revamp, a prediction that suggests a more stringent premarket path for these products in the years ahead.
The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has posted an early value assessment review of digital technologies for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, giving the conditional nod to only one technology — the Mycopd app by London-based My Mhealth Ltd.
Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have generated a tsunami of popular dystopian musings, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has its own concerns about AI’s impact on intellectual property. PTO recently announced that it is looking for feedback on the use of AI to produce what litigants might spuriously claim is prior art, a concern that must be addressed if the patent system is to avoid crashing under the weight of an unmanageable volume of AI-generated clutter.
