Regulation of medical devices is always a messy and complicated task, but that has proven to be particularly true of the European Union’s (EU) Medical Device Regulation (MDR). Thanks largely to problems with the capacity of notified bodies (NBs) to review renewals of existing CE marks, patients in the EU may experience a significant dearth of medical devices over the next couple of years, a nightmare scenario that has all stakeholders scrambling for solutions.
As calendar year 2023 limps to the finish line, a number of important regulatory developments emerged and then submerged, but one development that is also a non-development took center stage in the world of med tech. The U.S. FDA has proposed a regulation for lab-developed tests (LDTs), an issue that has been simmering for the better part of a decade thanks in no small part to Congress’ failure to pass legislation that would eliminate the FDA’s controversial approach to rulemaking.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have issued the final version of their updated merger guidelines for corporations, concluding a process that took a scant six months to complete following the issuance of the draft.
The FDA’s ongoing efforts to modernize the 510(k) program produced three draft guidances in the waning days of fiscal year 2023, one of which is a draft for the scenarios in which clinical data would be required for a 510(k) application.
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The U.S. FDA’s draft guidance for selection of a predicate device in 510(k) submissions is part of a larger effort to overhaul the 510(k) program, but industry’s response is that this draft guidance goes too far.
The U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is not utterly opposed to the use of mechanical thrombectomy as a treatment for pulmonary embolism, but the agency believes that the outcomes data for high-risk patients are lacking.
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.
