Binding of amino acids and peptides to gelatin.

F. Steven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4165(65)90234-5

1965-06-15

Biochimica et Biophysica Acta

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Xingxian Luo,Lin Huang,Xin Du,Yue Yang,Xufeng Lv,Xiaohong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00025-1

2024-01-01

Abstract:In 1992, in an effort to bring novel drugs to market more quickly and meet patient needs in a timely manner, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pioneered an accelerated approval initiative on the basis of surrogate endpoints that are reasonably predictive of clinical benefit for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases. 1 US Food and Drug AdministrationAccelerated approval program. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/accelerated-approval-programDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar By contrast to regular approval, accelerated approval requires post-market confirmatory clinical trials to establish the clinical benefit of the drug, then a decision is made as to whether the approval should be converted to a traditional approval or whether the drug should be withdrawn from the market. 2 US Food and Drug AdministrationExpedited programs for serious conditions––drugs and biologics. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/expedited-programs-serious-conditions-drugs-and-biologicsDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar In the past 3 years, this expedited pathway has attracted extensive criticism, including failure to complete confirmatory clinical trials in a timely manner, 3 Fashoyin-Aje LA Mehta GU Beaver JA Pazdur R The on- and off-ramps of oncology accelerated approval. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387: 1439-1442 Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar , 4 Gyawali B Kesselheim AS Ross JS The accelerated approval program for cancer drugs—finding the right balance. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389: 968-971 Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar use of surrogate endpoints (eg, progression-free survival) in confirmatory clinical trials, 5 Parikh RB Hubbard RA Wang E et al. Exposure to US cancer drugs with lack of confirmed benefit after US Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval. JAMA Oncol. 2023; 9: 567-569 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar and failure to withdraw drugs quickly from the markets when they have been shown to not have clinical benefit. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar Concerns have also been raised that cancer drugs given accelerated approval by the FDA could lead to difficult decisions in other countries, especially in some low-income and middle-income countries that do not have their own regulatory agencies or that have weak regulatory capacity. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar , 7 Cramer A Sørup FKH Christensen HR Petersen TS Karstoft K Withdrawn accelerated approvals for cancer indications in the USA: what is the marketing authorisation status in the EU?. Lancet Oncol. 2023; 24: e385-e394 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar
Beyond the 510(k): The regulation of novel moderate-risk medical devices, intellectual property considerations, and innovation incentives in the FDA's De Novo pathway

Mateo Aboy,Cristina Crespo,Ariel Stern

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01021-y

IF: 15.2

2024-02-09

npj Digital Medicine

Abstract:Moderate-risk medical devices constitute 99% of those that have been regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since it gained authority to regulate medical technology nearly five decades ago. This article presents an analysis of the interaction between the 510(k) process —the historically dominant path to market for most medical devices— and the De Novo pathway, a more recent alternative that targets more novel devices, including those involving new technologies, diagnostics, hardware, and software. The De Novo pathway holds significant potential for innovators seeking to define new categories of medical devices, as it represents a less burdensome approach than would have otherwise been needed historically. Moreover, it supports the FDA in its effort to modernize the long-established 510(k) pathway by promoting the availability of up-to-date device "predicates" upon which subsequent device applications can be based, reflecting positive spillovers that are likely to encourage manufacturers to adopt current state-of-the-art technologies and modern standards of safety and effectiveness. We analyze the of characteristics all the De Novo classification requests to date, including the submission type, trends, FDA review times, and device types. After characterizing how the De Novo process has been used over time, we discuss its unique challenges and opportunities with respect to medical device software and AI-enabled devices, including considerations for intellectual property, innovation, and competition economics.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Regulation and Clinical Investigation of Medical Device in the European Union

Manita,Aakash Deep,Vikram,Avtar C. Rana,Prabodh C. Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/2213476x06666190821095407

2019-11-13

Applied Clinical Research, Clinical Trials and Regulatory Affairs

Abstract:Background:: Medical devices are the machine, tool, instrument, apparatus, implant, calibrator in vitro, software, the similar or related object intended for use by the manufacturer alone or in combination becoming increasingly important in the healthcare sector as these are used to diagnosis, control, prevention or treatment of an illness. Safety of the world population is the highest priority in order to launch new medical devices for the treatment and diagnostic of several diseases. New innovation in industries and regulations work together to provide devices for different world market and to improve quality and safety of exiting devices in the market. The main key for devices is to classify the determination of actual regulatory pathway which ensures the safety standards and other regulatory requirements in a specific country. We perform clinical trials for medical device which are quite different from the clinical trials performed for drug analysis. For any high-risk devices, the new EU law states that the manufacturer has to prepare a complete summary for their evidence. The clinical trials regulation provides more transparency on clinical trials data. Complete transparency is required for the maximum possibility of informed decisions in order to use new medical devices. Objective:: The current manuscript will provide the information regarding the regulatory framework for the approval of medical devices and clinical investigation of medical device in European Union and comparison of approval process of medical device in USA, EU and India. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the most suitable and emerging requirements that manufacturers need for introducing their medical devices in the market in compliance with the MDR regulations. Conclusion:: The proposal for a modified regulation of medical devices aims to ensure more robust clinical data in support of the CE marking applications of the medical device. The clinical investigation requirements will be mandatory, and there will be an obligation to demonstrate the clinical benefits of the device and provide a rigorous equivalence test if the assessment is based on comparison devices. The new European legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using a randomized controlled trial if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized.

English Else
Harmonizing Safety and Speed: A Human-Algorithm Approach to Enhance the FDA's Medical Device Clearance Policy

Mohammad Zhalechian,Soroush Saghafian,Omar Robles

2024-07-16

Abstract:The United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Premarket Notification 510(K) pathway allows manufacturers to gain approval for a medical device by demonstrating its substantial equivalence to another legally marketed device. However, the inherent ambiguity of this regulatory procedure has led to high recall rates for many devices cleared through this pathway. This trend has raised significant concerns regarding the efficacy of the FDA's current approach, prompting a reassessment of the 510(K) regulatory framework. In this paper, we develop a combined human-algorithm approach to assist the FDA in improving its 510(k) medical device clearance process by reducing the risk of potential recalls and the workload imposed on the FDA. We first develop machine learning methods to estimate the risk of recall of 510(k) medical devices based on the information available at the time of submission. We then propose a data-driven clearance policy that recommends acceptance, rejection, or deferral to FDA's committees for in-depth evaluation. We conduct an empirical study using a unique large-scale dataset of over 31,000 medical devices and 12,000 national and international manufacturers from over 65 countries that we assembled based on data sources from the FDA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS). A conservative evaluation of our proposed policy based on this data shows a 38.9% improvement in the recall rate and a 43.0% reduction in the FDA's workload. Our analyses also indicate that implementing our policy could result in significant annual cost-savings ranging between \$2.4 billion and \$2.7 billion, which highlights the value of using a holistic and data-driven approach to improve the FDA's current 510(K) medical device evaluation pathway.

Machine Learning,Human-Computer Interaction,Optimization and Control
Influx-Operated Ca(2+) Entry via PKD2-L1 and PKD1-L3 Channels Facilitates Sensory Responses to Polymodal Transient Stimuli.

Mingfeng Hu,Yuxia Liu,Jin-zhi Wu,Xiaodong Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.09.041

IF: 8.8

2015-10-27

Cell Reports

Abstract:
Overview of the US FDA Medical Device Approval Process

Ashwani Sastry

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-014-0494-3

IF: 3.955

2014-06-01

Current Cardiology Reports

Abstract:Increasing barriers to medical device innovation in the United States including constrained financial resources and rising research costs require that physicians take on greater involvement in medical device development, evaluation, and regulatory processes. Such involvement requires that physicians understand basic aspects of the regulatory process for medical devices and recognize the myriad opportunities for involvement in these activities.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Regulation of orthopaedic devices: Future implications for research and innovation

Claire A Donnelley,Vincent J Devlin,Mitchel B Harris,Robert A Poggie,Roy W Sanders,Saam Morshed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000101

2021-04-15

Abstract:The conception-to-market development of orthopaedic devices occurs across the total product life cycle including device design and preclinical testing, clinical investigations to support marketing applications, and monitoring of device performance after market introduction. This process involves industry, regulatory agencies, health care providers, engineers, scientists, and patients. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating medical devices in the United States, and uses a 3-tier classification system based on the level of control necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Classification directs the required regulatory pathway and premarket submission type. Variations in global regulations, particularly between the United States, European Economic Area (EEA), and the United Kingdom (UK), may impact industry response to orthopaedic device development. Changing device innovation and reimbursement models have led to the consolidation of market share among larger companies. Although larger companies are better able to cope with more rigorous regulatory requirements, this leads to decreased competition and increased upward price pressure. To assist with the complex regulatory processes, the FDA offers pre-submission assistance as an opportunity for early collaboration and discussion about the medical device or device-led combination product submissions. Orthopaedic organizations, such as the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), may assist in postmarket device surveillance through the coordinated development and maintenance of clinical data registries. Such registries can longitudinally follow patients with a specific orthopaedic pathology or device usage, and monitor outcomes towards improvements in next-generation device development. As technology evolves, the nexus of regulation, industry, and patient outcome monitoring will continue to support safe and effective device innovation.
The medical device development ecosystem: Current regulatory state and challenges for future development: A review

David R Holmes Jr,Andrew Farb,Nabil Dib,Louis Jacques,Stanton Rowe,Anthony DeMaria,Spencer King,Bram Zuckerman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carrev.2023.09.005

Abstract:Background/purpose: There has been increasing emphasis on the development of new technology to mitigate unmet clinical needs in cardiovascular disease. This emphasis results in part from recognition that many devices, although being initially developed in the United States, were studied, and then eventually approved abroad before being returned to the U.S. for clinical application. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) guidance document on Early Feasibility Studies (EFS) and then the 21st Century Cures Act from 2013 to 2016 focused on these issues. Materials/methods: There are multiple components of medical device translational pathways to be considered in continuing to reach the goal of providing early access to safe and effective products to the U.S. Population: This review article documents the various stages from early idea innovation to device design and iteration to clinical testing and then potential approval and application in the wide clinical practice of cardiovascular health care. Results: The CDRH (Centers for Devices and Radiological Health) has focused on key components including EFS, Breakthrough Devices Program, Total Product Life Cycle, the Unique Device Identification Program, the establishment of a Digital Health Center of Excellence, and leveraging Collaborative Communities. Each of these initiatives focuses on improving the Medical Device Development Ecosystem. Conclusions: Major changes in device translational research have improved the device research climate in the United States. Goals remain including increased training and education for constituencies aspiring to work in the field of device development and regulation as part of a continuous health care learning system.
Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process

Diana M. Zuckerman,Paul Brown,Steven E. Nissen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.30

2011-06-13

Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Unlike prescription drugs, medical devices are reviewed by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using 2 alternative regulatory standards: (1) premarket approval (PMA), which requires clinical testing and inspections; or (2) the 510(k) process, which requires that the device be similar to a device already marketed (predicate device). The second standard is intended for devices that the FDA deems to involve low or moderate risk.METHODS: We analyzed the FDA's high-risk List of Device Recalls from 2005 through 2009. Using FDA data, we determined whether the recalled devices were approved by the more rigorous (PMA) process, the 510(k) process, or were exempt from FDA review.RESULTS: There were 113 recalls from 2005 through 2009 that the FDA determined could cause serious health problems or death. Only 21 of the 113 devices had been approved through the PMA process (19%). Eighty were cleared through the 510(k) process (71%), and an additional 8 were exempt from any FDA regulation (7%). Cardiovascular devices comprised the largest recall category, with 35 of the high-risk recalls (31%); two-thirds were cleared by the 510(k) process (66%; n = 23). Fifty-one percent of the high-risk recalls were in 5 other device categories: general hospital, anesthesiology, clinical chemistry, neurology, or ophthalmology.CONCLUSIONS: Most medical devices recalled for life-threatening or very serious hazards were originally cleared for market using the less stringent 510(k) process or were considered so low risk that they were exempt from review (78%). These findings suggest that reform of the regulatory process is needed to ensure the safety of medical devices.

English Else
Integrated Devices: A New Regulatory Pathway to Promote Revolutionary Innovation

TED CHO,VRUSHAB GOWDA,HENNING SCHULZRINNE,BRIAN J. MILLER

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12692

2024-01-24

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:Policy Points Current medical device regulatory frameworks date back half a century and are ill suited for the next generation of medical devices that involve a significant software component. Existing Food and Drug Administration efforts are insufficient because of a lack of statutory authority, whereas international examples offer lessons for improving and harmonizing domestic medical device regulatory policy. A voluntary alternative pathway built upon two‐stage review with individual component review followed by holistic review for integrated devices would provide regulators with new tools to address a changing medical device marketplace

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Improving Medical Device Regulation: The United States and Europe in Perspective

CORINNA SORENSON,MICHAEL DRUMMOND

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12043

2014-03-01

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:CONTEXT: Recent debates and events have brought into question the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the United States and Europe to ensure their performance, safety, and quality. This article provides a comparative analysis of medical device regulation in the two jurisdictions, explores current reforms to improve the existing systems, and discusses additional actions that should be considered to fully meet this aim. Medical device regulation must be improved to safeguard public health and ensure that high-quality and effective technologies reach patients.METHODS: We explored and analyzed medical device regulatory systems in the United States and Europe in accordance with the available gray and peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents.FINDINGS: The two regulatory systems differ in their mandate and orientation, organization, pre- and postmarket evidence requirements, and transparency of process. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions face similar challenges for ensuring that only safe and effective devices reach the market, monitoring real-world use, and exchanging pertinent information on devices with key users such as clinicians and patients. To address these issues, reforms have recently been introduced or debated in the United States and Europe that are principally focused on strengthening regulatory processes, enhancing postmarket regulation through more robust surveillance systems, and improving the traceability and monitoring of devices. Some changes in premarket requirements for devices are being considered.CONCLUSIONS: Although the current reforms address some of the outstanding challenges in device regulation, additional steps are needed to improve existing policy. We examine a number of actions to be considered, such as requiring high-quality evidence of benefit for medium- and high-risk devices; moving toward greater centralization and coordination of regulatory approval in Europe; creating links between device identifier systems and existing data collection tools, such as electronic health records; and fostering increased and more effective use of registries to ensure safe postmarket use of new and existing devices.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
A Review on Approval Process and Regulation of Medical Devices as per US FDA and CDSCO

Kaustubh Navnath Pawar,Rohit Tukaram Gore,Samiksha Rohidas Palekar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22270/ijdra.v11i1.586

2023-03-20

International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs

Abstract:Regulatory affairs play a significant role in the pharmaceutical industry, it is “the process of gathering, reviewing, and monitoring the existing regulatory environment and creating regulatory plans and gaining a competitive edge for securing regulatory approvals required more than just acquiring facts”. A medical device is a treatment instrument that "does not work on or in the human body in a way that is primarily intended by pharmacological, immunological, or metabolic mechanisms”. In other words, a medical device is essentially any medical product, not a medicine or biological product. By the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) oversees approving drugs, conducting clinical trials, setting standards for drugs, monitoring the quality of drugs imported into the nation, and coordinating the efforts of state drug control organizations by offering professional advice to ensure uniformity in the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a single agency, oversees the regulation of a trillion dollars’ worth of goods, or about 25 cents of every dollar spent, including 80 percent of the food supply in the US, all medical devices, and prescription drugs, animal products, cosmetics, and even the production of tobacco products. The FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health regulates companies that produce, repackage, re-label, and/or import medical devices sold in the United States (CDRH). Also, CDRH is in charge of overseeing the regulation of lasers, x-ray machines, ultrasound equipment, microwave ovens, and color televisions, among other electronic gadgets that generate radiation for both medical and non-medical purposes. The IMDR, which was published in January 2017 and became effective in January 2018, was produced by the Medical Devices and Diagnostics Division of CDSCO and is a set of structured regulations for medical devices. In February 2020, the "Medical Devices (Amendment) Regulations, 2020" were established, and they became effective in April 2020. The 2020 amendment now includes a new clause called "registration of specific medical equipment."

English Else
Review of U.S. Medical Device Regulation

Jan B. Pietzsch,Lauren M. Aquino,Paul G. Yock,M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,John H. Linehan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2812429

2007-10-19

Journal of Medical Devices

Abstract:Medical device regulation plays a significant role in the design, development, and commercialization of new medical technologies. A comprehensive understanding of the various regulatory requirements and their practical implementation is thus an essential cornerstone of successful medical device innovation. In this paper, we review the background, mission, and statutory requirements of medical device regulation in the United States. As opposed to pharmaceuticals, which have been regulated since the early 1900s, medical device regulation was not enacted before 1976, when Congress signed into law the Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has implemented a risk-based classification system, which is essential in determining the regulatory pathway for a given device. Our review of the different regulatory pathways discusses the specific steps and requirements associated with each pathway, and their implications for development and testing of different types of devices. The differences in these pathways are significant, and thus require careful consideration and analysis already at early stages of development. The FDA’s Quality Systems Regulation, which outlines specific requirements for development, testing, production, and postmarket surveillance, is another important aspect of device regulation. We present its elements and relationship to design controls and other operating procedures implemented by device manufacturers, and discuss their relevance in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of marketed devices. A summary of recent additions to device regulation, implemented by the FDA to allow for adequate regulation of products that combine drugs and devices or biologics and devices (so-called combination products), completes our review. Because of the significance of device regulation for medical device innovation, we strongly support increased efforts to educate the various stakeholders involved in the medical device development process, both at the academic and professional level.

engineering, biomedical
Regulation of Medical Devices and their Clinical Trials Studies in the USA: An Update

Manita,Aakash Deep,Vikram,A.C. Rana,Monu Yadav,Rakesh K. Marwaha

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/2405520412666190828202733

2020-02-12

Recent Innovations in Chemical Engineering (Formerly Recent Patents on Chemical Engineering)

Abstract:Background: Need for Medical devices is very important in the healthcare sector and related processes for global regulation. Medical devices are the apparatus or instruments which are specifically used for diagnostics and therapeutic applications. In the USA, a regulatory body known as FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has its unit called CDRH which looks the manufacture, packaging and use of medical devices in the USA. Objective: In USA, Medical devices are classified into 3 classes: class I which look for the medical devices used for the general control as dental floss and bandages, etc., class II which regulate the medical devices used for the general control as well as special control as powered wheelchairs and pregnancy kits. Class III medical devices look the general control. PMA (Premarket Approval) and Premarket Notification application has been filed to FDA for seeking the market authorization of medical devices. We perform clinical trials for medical device which are quite different from the clinical trials performed for drug analysis. These trials are performed on various age groups such as on paediatrics, adult and old age group commonly called phase 1,2,3,4. Regulatory approval of high-risk medical device is based on clinical studies submitted with pre-market approval. The main objective of this article is to make the researcher aware of the regulation and clinical trials of medical devices in the USA. Conclusion: Every medical device should comply with FDA, QMS and QSR for marketing in the USA. The present article has focused on the regulation of medical devices, clinical trial phases and clinical studies on medical devices.

English Else
FDA's perspectives on cardiovascular devices

Eric A Chen,Sonna M Patel-Raman,Kathryn O'Callaghan,Matthew G Hillebrenner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12265-009-9096-7

Abstract:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision process for approving or clearing medical devices is often determined by a review of robust clinical data and extensive preclinical testing of the device. The mission statement for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is to review the information provided by manufacturers so that it can promote and protect the health of the public by ensuring the safety and effectiveness of medical devices deemed appropriate for human use (Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, Section 903(b)(1, 2(C)), December 31, 2004; accessed December 17, 2008 http://www.fda.gov/opacom/laws/fdcact/fdctoc.htm). For high-risk devices, such as ventricular assist devices (VADs), mechanical heart valves, stents, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices, pacemakers, and defibrillators, the determination is based on FDA's review of extensive preclinical bench and animal testing followed by use of the device in a clinical trial in humans. These clinical trials allow the manufacturer to evaluate a device in the intended use population. FDA reviews the data from the clinical trial to determine if the device performed as predicted and the clinical benefits outweigh the risks. This article reviews the regulatory framework for different marketing applications related to cardiovascular devices and describes the process of obtaining approval to study a cardiovascular device in a U.S. clinical trial.
Regulatory strategies for early device development and approval

David R. Holmes,Rick Geoffrion,Jon Hunt,Robert ”Chip” Hance,Martin B. Leon,Michael J. Mack,Aaron V. Kaplan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.30151

IF: 2.3

2022-04-29

Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Abstract:The development of new technology to treat unmet clinical needs is an important component of modern cardiovascular disease. The need for this has been emphasized in the past several years beginning with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance document on Early Feasibility Studies in 2012 and then the 21st Century Cures legislation. A number of steps need to be considered in this process by the stakeholders involved including physician innovators and scientists, professional societies such as Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, regulatory agencies, and medical device companies. This article focuses on the early iterative steps required to optimize the process and achieve the goal of timely efficient innovation and device development in cardiovascular disease.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Regulatory perspectives on medical device approval in global jurisdictions

Deepak Kaushik,Shivaji Rai,Harish Dureja,Vineet Mittal,Anurag Khatkar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1741134314553137

2013-09-01

Abstract:Today medical device sector is evolving to find the new horizons. Medical device approval is a time-consuming process that requires submission of safety, efficacy and quality documentation to national regulatory bodies in various countries. While there are some similarities among the countries regarding medical device regulations, some differences also exist that significantly affect the regulatory scrutiny. This presents a great problem for manufacturers marketing their products in multiple countries. Competent authorities worldwide have begun to realize the problem and collaborate to harmonize the regulations. In the present article regulatory approval procedure is discussed in different jurisdictions such as United States, European Union, Japan, China and India along with comparisons in terms of classification of devices, competent authorities, rules and regulations and quality management systems involved in these countries.

English Else
FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Benjamin R Rossen

Abstract:On December 14, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed two new regulations in the Federal Register amending current regulations governing expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use and charging for investigational drugs. The proposals come at a time when FDA has found itself under new pressure to provide seriously ill patients with early access to investigational drugs outside the framework of clinical trials. In recent years, patient advocacy groups have filed citizen petitions with FDA asking the agency to provide specific criteria to patients and sponsors seeking expanded access or to create an early approval mechanism to permit easier access to investigational therapies. Further, FDA has seen proposed federal legislation intended to ensure early patient access to investigational treatments and nearly lost a lawsuit in federal court in which terminally ill patients sought a fundamental right of access to investigational therapies under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The proposed rules seek to assuage patient activists, physicians, drug sponsors and other critics who contend that FDA must strike an appropriate balance between allowing patient access to promising treatments while protecting against undue risk and safeguarding the clinical trials process. Although FDA heralded the announcement of the rules as a key step forward to improving patient access, the proposal does not expand access beyond measures currently available under longstanding agency practice and, in fact, creates new regulatory barriers and disincentives to industry participation in expanded access programs. This article examines the proposal in light of historical agency regulation and recent pressures to expand access. Section II describes the historical development of FDA's statutory authority to regulate drugs and the traditional new drug approval process. Section III describes the various methods through which FDA has allowed expanded access to investigational treatments since 1962. Section IV recounts various recent pressures on FDA to reform its expanded access procedures and describes the context in which FDA's recent proposal arises. Section V examines the changes proposed in both the proposed rules to expand access to investigational treatment and charging for investigational drugs. Section VI evaluates the rules and argues that the proposal will fail to expand access for patients because new restrictions on charging provide no incentive for industry participation and the proposed regulations create increased regulatory barriers to access inconsistent with FDA's statutory mandate
Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017

Jonathan R. Dubin,Stephen D. Simon,Kirsten Norrell,Jacob Perera,Jacob Gowen,Akin Cil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7274

2021-05-06

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 510(k) clearance and premarket approval (PMA) pathways to ensure device safety before marketing. Premarket approval evaluates high-risk medical devices and requires clinical trials, whereas 510(k) clearance evaluates moderate-risk devices and relies on benchtop (nonclinical and biomechanical) and descriptive data. Existing literature suggests that the clinical trials required by PMA are associated with reduced risk of recall compared with devices granted 510(k) clearance. Several investigators have found weaknesses in pivotal PMA trials, raising safety concerns. Furthermore, methodological factors may have led to a previous underestimation of recall risk for devices with PMA.Objectives: To compare risk of recall and high-risk recall between devices that received 510(k) clearance and those that received PMA and to compare the risk of recall between devices for medical specialties.Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study compared devices with 510(k) clearance vs those with PMA that reached the market between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Two- to 12-year follow-up was obtained from the FDA's 510(k) and PMA medical device database. Orthopedic surgery was chosen arbitrarily as the reference category for analysis between specialties because no baseline exists. Statistical analysis was performed from February 1 to November 1, 2020.Main Outcomes and Measures: The FDA issues recalls for safety concerns. These recalls are stratified into class I, II, and III, with class I representing high-risk issues for serious harm or death. The main outcome was the hazard ratio of any recall and class I recall between devices with PMA and those with 510(k) clearance. The secondary outcome was the recall hazard ratio between specialties with respect to the reference category. A single Cox proportional hazards regression model evaluating the association of medical specialty and FDA approval pathway with the risk of recall was performed.Results: During the study period, 28 246 devices received 510(k) clearance and 310 devices (10.7%) received PMA; 3012 devices (10.7%) with 510(k) clearance and 84 devices (27.1%) with PMA were recalled. A total of 216 devices (0.8%) with 510(k) clearance and 16 devices (5.2%) with PMA had class I recalls. Devices with PMA compared with those with 510(k) clearance had a hazard ratio for recall of 2.74 (95% CI, 2.19-3.44; P < .001) and a hazard ratio for high-risk recall of 7.30 (95% CI, 4.39-12.13; P < .001). Only radiologic devices were associated with an increased risk of recall (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.32-1.87; P < .001), whereas 6 specialties were assocated with a decreased risk compared with the orthopedic reference category: general and plastic surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, physical medicine, hematology, and general hospital.Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that high-risk medical devices approved via PMA are associated with a greater risk of recall than previously reported. Most recalls are for devices with 510(k) clearance, also raising safety concerns. Strengthening postmarketing surveillance strategies and pivotal trials may improve device safety.

medicine, general & internal

Binding of amino acids and peptides to gelatin.

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Beyond the 510(k): The regulation of novel moderate-risk medical devices, intellectual property considerations, and innovation incentives in the FDA's De Novo pathway

Regulation and Clinical Investigation of Medical Device in the European Union

Harmonizing Safety and Speed: A Human-Algorithm Approach to Enhance the FDA's Medical Device Clearance Policy

Influx-Operated Ca(2+) Entry via PKD2-L1 and PKD1-L3 Channels Facilitates Sensory Responses to Polymodal Transient Stimuli.

Overview of the US FDA Medical Device Approval Process

Regulation of orthopaedic devices: Future implications for research and innovation

The medical device development ecosystem: Current regulatory state and challenges for future development: A review

Medical Device Recalls and the FDA Approval Process

Integrated Devices: A New Regulatory Pathway to Promote Revolutionary Innovation

Improving Medical Device Regulation: The United States and Europe in Perspective

A Review on Approval Process and Regulation of Medical Devices as per US FDA and CDSCO

Review of U.S. Medical Device Regulation

Regulation of Medical Devices and their Clinical Trials Studies in the USA: An Update

FDA's perspectives on cardiovascular devices

Regulatory strategies for early device development and approval

Regulatory perspectives on medical device approval in global jurisdictions

FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Risk of Recall Among Medical Devices Undergoing US Food and Drug Administration 510(k) Clearance and Premarket Approval, 2008-2017