The FDA’s draft guidance for predetermined change control plans (PCCPs) is just that, a draft guidance, but that has not stopped the agency from incorporating the underlying concepts into existing guidances. An example of this is the September 2023 guidance for antimicrobial susceptibility test (AST) system for breakpoints in device labeling, a document that represents a jarring update to the legacy version published in 2009.
Witnesses at a Feb. 8 hearing in the U.S. Congress emphasized that the proposed Advanced Research Projects Agency – Health (ARPA-H) must be an independent agency to avoid a crippling case of bureaucratic torpor. However, several members of Congress and one of the witnesses made the case that ARPA-H would increase duplicative taxpayer spending without providing a commensurate increase in productive research in the life sciences, signaling that establishment of this new DARPA-like agency is anything but guaranteed.
The U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee passed an appropriations bill for the FDA that would add $257 million to the agency’s budget authority for fiscal year 2022, an increase of 8% over the currently enacted level. The Alliance for a Stronger FDA said in a June 25 statement that it will work to ensure the Senate comes up with similar numbers, characterizing the push to fully fund the agency as “a multi-year marathon, not a sprint.”
The follow-up to the U.S. 21st Century Cures Act, dubbed Cures 2.0, encodes several anticipated features such as a Medicare coverage mechanism for breakthrough devices and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Less expected was a provision for the use of real-world evidence in evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of drugs and biologics after FDA approval, a provision that could prove useful in post-approval evaluations of products such as Biogen’s Aduhelm.
Of all the controversies surrounding the FDA, the agency’s reliance on user fees and its use of accelerated review of therapies might be the most consistent sources of public angst. Coleen Klasmeier, a partner of Sidley Austin LLP, told BioWorld that while she is not particularly concerned about regulatory capture stemming from FDA reliance on user fees, it may be appropriate to ask whether the drug premarket review process leaves FDA staff with more confidence in a new drug application than the data would seem to suggest.
The FDA has finalized a 2018 draft rule that excludes several digital products from the definition of a medical device, a list that includes medical device data systems (MDDS) used in hospitals. The rule responds to requirements spelled out in the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed into law in late 2016, making this a project of nearly five years’ duration on the FDA’s part.
As is the case with many national governments, the U.S. federal government does not routinely measure its activities in the calendar year, but we at BioWorld don’t share that outlook. CY 2020 was odd in more ways than one from a regulatory standpoint, and thus we offer our version of a regulatory top 10 for a year that might not look much better in the rear-view mirror than it has looked as a current event.
The latest global regulatory news, changes and updates affecting medical devices and technologies, including: J&J subsidiary agrees to settle off-label promotion allegations; FDA says ‘vulnerabilities persist’ in limited CDS programs.
The FDA's revised draft guidance for clinical decision support (CDS) systems was intended to fix several glaring holes in the first draft, but multiple stakeholders argued that the second draft contradicts the related provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act when it comes to CDS systems that purport to drive or guide clinical decision making.
The U.S. FDA has engaged in an overhaul of its software policies in the wake of the mandates spelled out by the 21st Century Cures Act. However, those policies are still a work in progress, as a recent FDA webinar made clear. The FDA won’t have long to put those policies into place as the U.S. House of Representatives is considering a follow-on to the Cures Act, dubbed Cures 2.0, which will impose yet more changes on the agency’s approach to software regulation.