All Clarivate Analytics websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

More information on our cookie policy.

  • BioWorld
  • BioWorld MedTech
  • BioWorld Asia
  • Market intelligence reports
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Subscribe
BioWorld - Sunday, December 8, 2019
Home » Blogs » BioWorld MedTech Perspectives » Substantial equivalence revisited

BioWorld MedTech Perspectives
BioWorld MedTech Perspectives RSS FeedRSS

BioWorld MedTech

Substantial equivalence revisited

December 5, 2018
By Mark McCarty
No Comments
Gottlieb
A case of 'definitely maybe'?

When things go awry, we often hear the rather dubious claim that goes something like this: "I hate to say I told you so, but..."

Truth be told, that's silly. We love being able to say we told you so. We're human! In that spirit, when it comes to the FDA's recent announcement about getting rid of the substantial equivalence standard for 510(k) devices, let me say this: I told you so.

To recap, the latest set of FDA proposals regarding the 510(k) program, including a rather oafish doing-away with the substantial equivalence standard, have drawn a lot of ink in the trade press, and for good reason. Many of these proposals are entirely extralegal, a predicament with which the agency is far too familiar, but many of us have blamed this latest rash impulse on the agency's part on the Implant Files series by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

That's speculative, but there may be a grain of truth to it despite that the two "authors" of the FDA statement on the 510(k) program have different tendencies in this regard. Jeff Shuren, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, has a well-documented distaste for the 510(k) program, but FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb's impulses are presumed to lean toward less regulatory adventurousness. His moderately conservative bona fides were pretty well established during his time at the American Enterprise Institute, and he certainly has been no friend of the agency where the commercial speech question is concerned.

Agreeing not to disagree

On the other hand, these two government employees might comfortably fit both their signatures on this memo about substantial equivalence if it is, indeed, largely a reaction to the ICIF. For Shuren, this is old hat and thus not even remotely a stretch, while for Gottlieb, it would be a way to deflect criticism, however temporary the effect might be.

Assuming for a moment this is more of a head fake on Gottlieb's part, it's one he can afford if one assumes the agency would indeed need the help of Congress to pull it off. The 116th Congress does have a Democratic majority in the House, which would presumably at least not be flatly opposed to the idea. That's not even remotely true of the Senate, however, and we all know by now that this kind of thing would never fly in the Oval Office.

So for Gottlieb, this is dessert with no calories. We should all be so lucky this time of year.

The net effect of all this is that the FDA – assuming it is serious about dumping substantial equivalence for objective performance criteria – has a nearly impossible lift in front of it. The agency has no shot at statutory authorization, and should it proceed with this plan without legislative authorization, you can be sure the matter will show up in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with a ton of amicus curiae arguing (quite correctly, in my view) that the agency is way out of bounds. I'm reasonably certain the Washington Legal Foundation would join in on the lawsuit, and they have had some success in legal scrums with the FDA.

All in all, it's tough to avoid the conclusion that this is a losing proposition for the FDA, but that won't take substantial equivalence off the endangered species list. As the FDA has noted, 510(k) filings have ballooned in size over the past few years, a trend that might continue.

Ultimately, device makers may more frequently find that additional requests for information start to resemble requests for objective performance criteria, and it's certainly not as if reviewers at the Office of Device Evaluation have no history of renegade behavior. We may trust they've all seen the ICIJ coverage, and when one adds the Netflix program, "The Bleeding Edge" to the picture, a new wave of resentment and resistance may quietly emerge at ODE. This predicament certainly bears watching.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Popular Stories

  • Bioworld MedTech’s Oncology Extra

    BioWorld MedTech
    Keeping you up to date on recent developments in oncology.
  • Drugs-pills-global-map-

    Analysis by U.K. startup Medbelle highlights extent of drug pricing disparity

    BioWorld
    LONDON – It’s no secret that American citizens pay the most for drugs, but the extent of the disparity is laid bare in a new index of the prices of 13 medicines...
  • Ear-disorders

    FDA gives thumbs up to Cochlear’s implantable bone conduction hearing system

    BioWorld MedTech
    The U.S. FDA has cleared Cochlear Ltd.’s newest cochlear implant, the Osia 2 system, an active implantable bone conduction hearing system. Unlike Cochlear’s...
  • Frankyoung-11-27

    Buoyed by optimism and love of family, former FDA chief Frank Young leaned into storms

    BioWorld
    Commissioner of the FDA for five years starting in 1984, Frank Young relished his position “at the vortex of controversy” as he sought to deal with the AIDS...
  • Biopharma companies continue their strong momentum in November

    BioWorld
    After being in the doldrums for the majority of the year, public biopharmaceutical companies, it appears, have turned the corner and are now on a major upswing.
cortellis ad

BioWorld Premium

Enjoy extended coverage for the most complete market view with BioWorld, BioWorld MedTech, and BioWorld Asia in a single, easy to access subscription.

Subscribe
  • BioWorld
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Clinical
    • Data Snapshots
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld MedTech
    • Today's news
    • Clinical
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld Asia
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Australia
    • China
    • Clinical
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • More
    • About
    • Archives
    • Contact us
    • Cookie policy
    • Copyright notice
    • Privacy policy
    • Share your news
    • Staff
    • Terms of use
Follow Us

Copyright ©2019. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing