The FDA and industry are deep into the negotiations over the next device user fee, with the usual array of concerns such as premarket program performance and the volume of user fees. Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), has once again given voice to a perceived need for a significant boost in user fee volumes in an interview with a major trade association, suggesting that device makers can expect a significant uptick in fees for PMAs and 510(k)s in the years ahead.

The FDA responded on Thursday to longtime industry calls for the agency to clarify the distinction between the “serving” and “remanufacturing” of a medical device with new draft guidance to provide consistency and a better understanding of the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The 35-page document details its current thinking on the distinction.

With the advent of wearable digital health technologies, patient-generated health data (PGHD) will play an increasingly central role in evidence generation for medical device companies. Speakers on a recent FDA workshop advised that there are several barriers to the use of PGHD for evidence generation, however, such as the perennial headache of data interoperability and a new twist on the question of patient trust, problems that are likely to plague the field for the foreseeable future.

The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued a new document on June 8 responding to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) call for position papers to fulfill the President’s Executive Order on improving the federal government’s cybersecurity. It details how CDRH is planning to do its part to advance the shared goal within medical devices.

With the next user fee agreement negotiations underway, device makers are not keen on a substantial hike in fee volumes. Nonetheless, Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, has proposed a total product life cycle (TPLC) advisory function for the next user fee agreement, something he said would bring more predictability to industry and allow the agency to interact much more routinely with device makers.

The COVID-19 pandemic’s direct and indirect toll on the human condition is beyond calculation, but the effect on FDA regulatory activity is easier to assess. The problem for device makers is that a number of draft and final guidances are stuck in a pandemic-driven regulatory limbo, which seemingly guarantees that some compliance and product development efforts will run afoul of the agency’s expectations and potentially delay a product’s market access.

The annual med-tech conference hosted by the Advanced Medical Technology Association, always features an FDA town hall, but this year’s town hall labored under the overhang of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, Jeff Shuren, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), repeatedly gave voice to frustration with the statutory authorities currently enjoyed by the center, stating on more than one occasion that the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 are more than 40 years old and are in need of updates to cope with modern medical technology.

The U.S. FDA’s interest in harmonizing its regulations for medical devices with an international standard is a matter of record, but the agency has found this to be an enormously complicated task. Kim Trautman, executive vice president for medical device services at NSF International, of Ann Arbor, Mich., told BioWorld that the task of rewriting Part 820 to meet ISO 13485 in the middle is no mean feat, but also that it may be delayed again, this time because of the COVID-19 pandemic.