The speculation as to the status of Michelle Tarver, the acting director of the U.S. FDA’s device center, is officially over despite disclaimers at. The outgoing director, Jeff Shuren, said Tarver “will make a great center director” in remarks during an Oct. 17 public appearance, thus cementing Tarver’s role at FDA.
The companion diagnostic (CDx) has been a mainstay of oncology care for several years, but Richard Pazdur, director of the U.S. FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence, said recently in a public forum recently that the notion of a single CDx for an investigational drug has not served patients well.
The companion diagnostic (CDx) has been a mainstay of oncology care for several years, but Richard Pazdur, director of the U.S. FDA’s Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE), said recently in a public forum recently that the notion of a single CDx for an investigational drug has not served patients well. Pazdur said OCE and the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health are working on a pilot program that would entail the publication of performance standards for the tests used in these trials, a development that would lead to more routine development of lab-developed tests (LDTs) for these studies and thus undercut any incentive to develop a patented in vitro diagnostic for that purpose.
The U.S. FDA’s safety and performance-based pathway (SPBP) is intended as a leaner, meaner alternative to the conventional 510(k) pathway that would sidestep some of the presumed problems with the concept of substantial equivalence. The agency recently added four device types to this program, including orthopedic fracture fixation plates.
The FDA program for third-party review of 510(k) applications was designed to take some of the load off the agency’s review staff and thus allow the agency to focus on more complex filings, but recent data suggest that the program has had only a modest effect on the FDA’s workload. The number of third-party reviews for the current and two previous fiscal years only modestly exceed the numbers from fiscal years 2018 and 2019, a conspicuous trend given the distractions at the FDA’s device arising from its work to manage the COVID-19 pandemic.
The FDA has published an updated guidance for the appeals process at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, but the issuance of that guidance did not happen in a vacuum. Mark Duval, president of Duval & Associates in Minneapolis, told BioWorld that industry is filing more appeals of premarket decisions of late, an uptick he said is an artifact of the practice of FDA reviewers more commonly asking for additional data for these applications.
The FDA’s November 2021 draft guidance for contents of premarket submission for device software functions may have been a desperately needed update for a legacy 2005 guidance, but stakeholders see one glaring omission from the draft. Both the Advanced Medical Technology Association and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America pointed to the absence of sign-off by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) for the draft, a conspicuous omission because a combination product with software may include a drug regulated by CDER.
The FDA’s device center has repeatedly asserted that its goal is to ensure that patients in the U.S. will always have first access to the latest and greatest in med tech, and a new priority document resurrects that goal in principle. However, the latest strategic plan qualifies that metric as half of manufacturers of novel technologies bringing their devices to the U.S. market “first, or in parallel with other major markets” by the end of 2025.
With the evidence that sex and gender both significantly affect the course of many diseases and the function of medical devices rapidly mounting, the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) released its strategic plan to better understand these differences.
The FDA’s device center has posted its annual fiscal year guidance agenda, and there are several carry-over items from fiscal 2021. The most conspicuous element of the FY 2022 agenda may be that a draft guidance for change control for artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms rates an entry on the B list rather than the A list, suggesting that the draft is not likely to emerge any time in the next 12 months.
RSS
