Artificial intelligence has morphed from a buzzword referencing a popular curiosity to a series of national security and competitiveness considerations, which was reflected in the tone of a recent hearing in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The qui tam or whistleblower lawsuit under the U.S. False Claims Act (FCA) has driven a large volume of litigation against life science companies, but three Supreme Court justices expressed misgivings about the constitutionality of the qui tam relator in the Court’s hearing of Polansky. Should a fourth Supreme Court justice harbor similar misgivings, the matter could be ripe for a hearing at the Supreme Court with the possibility that the qui tam relator would then be declared unconstitutional.
The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) is widely seen as a groundbreaking piece of legislative handiwork, but companies in the life sciences may see it as a groundbreaker with negative consequences. The latest edition of the AI Act continues to treat medical AI software as a high-risk product, which would make these products exceptionally expensive and burdensome to bring to market in the EU and convince some companies in the medical AI business to skip the European market altogether.
The U.S. FDA’s draft rule for lab-developed tests (LDTs) has proven to be every bit as controversial as expected, although the controversy is only marginally about the workload that would come with rulemaking.
The COVID-19 pandemic took a huge bite out of the U.S. FDA’s ability to conduct inspections in a timely manner, but the FDA’s Douglas Stearn said the agency has nonetheless ramped up these activities.
The unique device identifier (UDI) might not be the most exciting U.S. FDA enforcement mandate for most of regulated industry, but the FDA’s Keisha Thomas indicated that compliance is less than adequate in the agency’s view. Thomas addressed an audience at the Food and Drug Law Institute’s annual enforcement conference here in the nation’s capital, acknowledging that the proposed alignment of the Quality System Regulation – also known as Part 820 – with ISO 13485 is no light lift.
The U.S. FDA’s recent warning letter to Danvers, Mass.-based Abiomed Inc., may have come across as an enforcement outlier in the context of the agency’s controversial final guidance for clinical decision support (CDS) products.
The unique device identifier (UDI) might not be the most exciting U.S. FDA enforcement mandate for most of regulated industry, but the FDA’s Keisha Thomas indicated that compliance is less than adequate in the agency’s view.
The COVID-19 pandemic took a huge bite out of the U.S. FDA’s ability to conduct inspections in a timely manner, but the FDA’s Douglas Stearn said the agency has nonetheless ramped up these activities.
The U.S. FDA’s draft rule for regulation of lab-developed tests (LDTs) was accorded a mere 60 days for comment, but nonetheless drew support from a number of stakeholders, including Foundation Medicine of Cambridge, Mass.