Overview of the 2016 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Circulatory System Devices Advisory Panel Meeting on the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold System.

PubMed

Steinvil, Arie; Rogers, Toby; Torguson, Rebecca; Waksman, Ron

2016-09-12

This study aims to describe the discussions and recommendations made during the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Circulatory System Device Panel pre-market approval application for the Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold (BVS) System. The Absorb BVS System is a first-of-its-kind fully bioresorbable percutaneous coronary intervention technology. The absorb BVS was studied in the ABSORB III (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb BVS, the Everolimus Eluting Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold in the Treatment of Subjects with de Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trial, the pivotal U.S. investigational device exemption trial. Observational report of the FDA Circulatory System Device Panel pre-market approval application meeting held on March 15, 2016. The U.S. FDA Circulatory System Device Panel members reviewed the ABSROB III trial outcomes and additional post hoc analyses presented by the sponsor and the FDA. The ABSORB III trial met the primary endpoint of noninferiority of Absorb BVS compared with the control, XIENCE drug-eluting stent, for target lesion failure at 1 year. Although a higher numerical trend for adverse outcomes was reported for the Absorb BVS, there were no statistical differences between Absorb BVS and XIENCE for any safety or effectiveness components for target lesion failure or for the secondary pre-specified outcomes. Panel members raised concerns with regard to the ABSORB III results and post hoc analyses focusing mainly on the noninferiority design of the trial, the apparent safety issues of the Absorb BVS in small vessels, the mismatch of visually versus intravascular imaging assessed vessel size found in ABSORB III and its implications on the adequate device labeling, the safety of Absorb BVS in specific patient and lesion subsets, and the post-approval commitments of the sponsor. Following panel discussions and the evidence presented, the panel voted for approval of the device. Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

76 FR 42713 - General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-19

...] General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice... announcing an amendment to the notice of meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the... INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 7, 2011, FDA announced that a meeting of the General and Plastic...

76 FR 6623 - Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-02-07

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0066] Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY... public. Name of Committee: Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory...

75 FR 36660 - Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-06-28

... (L2-S1) degenerative disc disease. FDA intends to make background material available to the public no... providing access to electrical outlets. FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee...

21 CFR 814.44 - Procedures for review of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.44 Procedures for review of a PMA. (a) FDA will begin substantive review of a PMA after the PMA is accepted for filing under § 814.42. FDA may refer the PMA to a panel on its own initiative, and will do so upon request of an...

78 FR 19717 - Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-02

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001] Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee: Notice of Change of Meeting Schedule AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice; correction...

76 FR 18227 - Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-04-01

...] Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting... comment period for the notice announcing a meeting of the Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel (the panel... Register of February 7, 2011 (76 FR 6623), FDA published a notice announcing a meeting of the Molecular and...

21 CFR 814.44 - Procedures for review of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.44 Procedures for review of a PMA. Link to an amendment published at 75 FR 16351, Apr. 1, 2010. (a) FDA will begin substantive review of a PMA after the PMA is accepted for filing under § 814.42. FDA may refer the PMA to a panel on...

21 CFR 814.44 - Procedures for review of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.44 Procedures for review of a PMA. Link to an amendment published at 79 FR 1740, Jan. 10, 2014. (a) FDA will begin substantive review of a PMA after the PMA is accepted for filing under § 814.42. FDA may refer the PMA to a panel on...

75 FR 1395 - General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-01-11

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0606] General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice...) is announcing an amendment to the notice of a meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices...

78 FR 20328 - Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee: Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-04

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001... of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug... unavailable due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts. In the meantime, FDA analysis of industry-submitted...

Medtronic, Inc.; premarket approval of the Interstim Sacral Nerve Stimulation (SNS) System--FDA. Notice.

PubMed

1998-01-29

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing its approval of the application by Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, for premarket approval, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), of the Interstim Sacral Nerve Stimulation (SNS) System. After reviewing the recommendation of the Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel, FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) notified the applicant, by letter of September 29, 1997, of the approval of the application.

78 FR 21129 - Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-09

... always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down... conditions by means other than the generation of deep heat within body tissues. On July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39953... than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web...

Medical Device Plug-and-Play Interoperability Standards and Technology Leadership

DTIC Science & Technology

2014-10-01

downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/ CDRH /CDRHReports/UCM391521.pdf. Dr. Goldman spoke in multiple panels at this workshop...downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTo bacco/ CDRH /CDRHReports/UCM391521.pdf  Arney D, Plourde J, Schrenker R, Mattegunta P

76 FR 41507 - Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-14

...., vaginal erosion leading to pelvic pain and dyspareunia, and available information on clinical benefit. The... consider surgical mesh used to treat stress urinary incontinence. FDA intends to make background material...

76 FR 63928 - Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-10-14

... medical professionals. The database is a Web- based server that contains software, which receives data transmitted from the electronics unit, and presents the data for review by medical professionals. FDA intends...

78 FR 55081 - Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-09-09

... measurements to a database for review by medical professionals. The database is a Web-based server that... review by medical professionals. FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later...

76 FR 71983 - Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-11-21

... premarket approval application, sponsored by Torax Medical, Inc., for the LINX Reflux Management System, a sterile, single use, surgically placed device used to treat the symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease. FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business...

75 FR 33315 - Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-06-11

... discuss and make recommendations on scientific issues raised in petitions received by FDA concerning the... evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an...

77 FR 50701 - Radiological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-08-22

..., sponsored by Hologic, Inc. The Selenia Dimensions 3D System is currently approved for breast cancer... combination of DBT with synthetic 2D images to be used as another exam option for breast cancer screening. FDA... combination of FFDM with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). The new C-View Software Module can generate...

75 FR 1396 - The General Hospital and Personal Use Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-01-11

... and make recommendations regarding clinical risks and benefits of post-market actions in response to... FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background... before February 22, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled immediately following...

78 FR 46977 - Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-08-02

... Sealant is an in situ formed hydrogel that is applied topically to clear corneal incisions to create [email protected] , or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a...

78 FR 16684 - General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-03-18

... provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov...]derm Voluma XC is indicated for deep (dermal/subcutaneous and/or submuscular/ supraperiosteal... the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made...

Regulatory aspects of noninvasive glucose measurements.

PubMed

Gutman, Steve; Bernhardt, Patricia; Pinkos, Arleen; Moxey-Mims, Marva; Knott, Thomas; Cooper, Jean

2002-01-01

The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) established three regulatory classes for medical devices. Section 513 of the Act specifies three classes based upon the degree of control and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight that is necessary to assure that the various types of devices are safe and effective. High-risk devices are placed into the most regulated device class, Class III. Under Section 515 of the Act, all devices placed in Class III are subject to premarket approval (PMA) requirements. PMA by FDA is the required process of scientific review to ensure the safety and effectiveness of Class III devices. Advisory panel review is required of virtually all original submissions. Manufacturing facilities of devices requiring PMA approval are also subject to preapproval inspection to assure data integrity and compliance with good manufacturing practices. An approved PMA is granted for marketing a particular medical device for a particular intended use. FDA considers noninvasive and minimally invasive glucose devices that are intended to measure, monitor, or predict blood glucose levels in diabetics to be high-risk medical devices. These devices will have a significant potential impact on the medical care of people with diabetes. The technology offers potential improvements in the quality of life, enhanced blood glucose control through increased frequency of testing, or access to testing, in a broader range of patients. However, the technology is not yet well understood, and the information obtained from these devices is often different from the information that has been the traditional base for the management of diabetes. As a result, FDA requires both analytical and clinical studies to support the intended claims for these new devices.

Safety Assessment of Alumina and Aluminum Hydroxide as Used in Cosmetics.

PubMed

Becker, Lillian C; Boyer, Ivan; Bergfeld, Wilma F; Belsito, Donald V; Hill, Ronald A; Klaassen, Curtis D; Liebler, Daniel C; Marks, James G; Shank, Ronald C; Slaga, Thomas J; Snyder, Paul W; Andersen, F Alan

2016-11-01

This is a safety assessment of alumina and aluminum hydroxide as used in cosmetics. Alumina functions as an abrasive, absorbent, anticaking agent, bulking agent, and opacifying agent. Aluminum hydroxide functions as a buffering agent, corrosion inhibitor, and pH adjuster. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluated the safe use of alumina in several medical devices and aluminum hydroxide in over-the-counter drugs, which included a review of human and animal safety data. The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel considered the FDA evaluations as part of the basis for determining the safety of these ingredients as used in cosmetics. Alumina used in cosmetics is essentially the same as that used in medical devices. This safety assessment does not include metallic or elemental aluminum as a cosmetic ingredient. The CIR Expert Panel concluded that alumina and aluminum hydroxide are safe in the present practices of use and concentration described in this safety assessment. © The Author(s) 2016.

76 FR 62419 - General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-10-07

... Agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible... wrinkles in the face. The AQUAMID dermal filler is intended for use in mid-to-deep sub-dermal implantation... before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting...

76 FR 15986 - Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Global Medical Device Conference

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-22

... Small Business ( http://www.XavierMedCon.com . FDA has verified the Web site address, but is not.... Combination Products Panel. Update on Quality System Regulations. Warning Letter and Enforcement Action Trends... Trends for Sponsor-Monitors and CRO's. Supplier Controls. Advertising, and Promotion and Labeling Pre...

Marketing approval for the lithotripter.

PubMed

Nightingale, S L; Young, F E

1986-01-01

In December 1984, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Dornier Systems (FRG) approval to market the external shock wave lithotripter (ESWL) in the USA. The Medical Device Amendments of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act require that the FDA evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices intended for commercial distribution in the U.S. Such evaluation includes basic scientific studies, animal testing, and investigational studies in human subjects, culminating in a judgment concerning acceptable risks in terms of anticipated benefits, and whether the device is effective for its intended use. Prior to human studies in West Germany, Dornier had evaluated the destruction of stones of varying composition, measured the rate and energy of stone destruction, and tested blood samples and lymphocyte cultures exposed to shock waves. In addition, studies in both rats and dogs had demonstrated the feasibility of the technique and evidence of safety. Such data are provided by manufacturers when applying for an investigational device exemption (IDE) from the FDA, which permits clinical studies in humans; such studies also require the approval of an Institutional Review Board. The FDA approved Dornier's IDE, allowing human investigational use of the ESWL in facilities in the U.S., conducted concurrently with similar studies in West Germany. Upon completion of clinical trials, data acquired in vitro, in laboratory animals, and in human investigations are submitted to the FDA for a premarked approval application (PMAA). The Agency was given 6 months to make a decision, taking into consideration the recommendation of an advisory panel of experts from outside the Agency who had reviewed the same data. In its evaluation of the ESWL for safety and effectiveness, the FDA considered the question of alternative practices and procedures to treat nephrolithiasis, including percutaneous nephrolithotomy and open surgical procedures, and the adverse effects of such procedures. Clinical data available at the time of review for approval included reports of treatment of 667 patients in West German centers, and 327 patients treated in three U.S. facilities. Dornier and the FDA initiated discussions concerning the labeling of the device and a postmarketing surveillance plan. These were completed and marketing approval for the ESWL was granted.

FDA approval of cardiac implantable electronic devices via original and supplement premarket approval pathways, 1979-2012.

PubMed

Rome, Benjamin N; Kramer, Daniel B; Kesselheim, Aaron S

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates high-risk medical devices such as cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, via the premarket approval (PMA) process, during which manufacturers submit clinical data demonstrating safety and effectiveness. Subsequent changes to approved high-risk devices are implemented via "supplements," which may not require additional clinical testing. To characterize the prevalence and characteristics of changes to CIEDs made through the PMA supplement process. Using the FDA's PMA database, we reviewed all CIEDs approved as original PMAs or supplements from 1979 through 2012. For each supplement, we collected the date approved, type of supplement (panel-track, 180-day, real-time, special, and 30-day notice), and the nature of the changes. We calculated the number of supplements approved per PMA and analyzed trends relating to different supplement regulatory categories over time. For supplements approved via the 180-day regulatory pathway, which often involve significant design changes, from 2010-2012, we identified how often additional clinical data were collected. From 1979-2012, the FDA approved 77 original and 5829 supplement PMA applications for CIEDs, with a median of 50 supplements per original PMA (interquartile range [IQR], 23-87). Excluding manufacturing changes that do not alter device design, the number of supplements approved each year was stable around a mean (SD) of 2.6 (0.9) supplements per PMA per year. Premarket approvals remained active via successive supplements over a median period of 15 years (IQR, 8-20), and 79% of the 77 original PMAs approved during our study period were the subject of at least 1 supplement in 2012. Thirty-seven percent of approved supplements involved a change to the device's design. Among 180-day supplements approved from 2010-2012, 23% (15/64) included new clinical data to support safety and effectiveness. Many CIED models currently used by clinicians were approved via the PMA supplement process, not as original PMAs. Most new device models are deemed safe and effective without requiring new clinical data, reinforcing the importance of rigorous postapproval surveillance of these devices.

Conflicts of interest in approvals of additives to food determined to be generally recognized as safe: out of balance.

PubMed

Neltner, Thomas G; Alger, Heather M; O'Reilly, James T; Krimsky, Sheldon; Bero, Lisa A; Maffini, Maricel V

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance allows food manufacturers to determine whether additives to food are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). Manufacturers are not required to notify the FDA of a GRAS determination, although in some instances they notify the agency. The individuals that companies select to make these determinations may have financial conflicts of interest. To determine the extent to which individuals selected by manufacturers to make GRAS determinations have conflicts of interest between their obligations to ensure that the use of the additive is safe and their financial relationships to the company. DESIGN Using conflict of interest criteria developed by a committee of the Institute of Medicine, we analyzed 451 GRAS notifications that were voluntarily submitted to the FDA between 1997 and 2012. Number of GRAS notices submitted to the FDA; frequency of various types of relationships between decision maker and additive manufacturer; frequency of participation on GRAS panels by individuals; and number of GRAS safety determinations identified by the FDA that were not submitted to the agency. For the 451 GRAS notifications, 22.4% of the safety assessments were made by an employee of an additive manufacturer, 13.3% by an employee of a consulting firm selected by the manufacturer, and 64.3% by an expert panel selected by either a consulting firm or the manufacturer. A standing expert panel selected by a third party made none of these safety assessments. The 290 panels that made GRAS determinations had an average of 3.5 members, with a maximum of 7. Ten individuals served on 27 or more panels; 1 individual served on 128 panels (44.1%). At least 1 of the 10 individuals with the most frequent service was a member of 225 panels (77.6%). Between 1997 and 2012, financial conflicts of interest were ubiquitous in determinations that an additive to food was GRAS. The lack of independent review in GRAS determinations raises concerns about the integrity of the process and whether it ensures the safety of the food supply, particularly in instances where the manufacturer does not notify the FDA of the determination. The FDA should address these concerns.

42 CFR 405.203 - FDA categorization of investigational devices.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false FDA categorization of investigational devices. 405... Coverage Decisions That Relate to Health Care Technology § 405.203 FDA categorization of investigational devices. (a) The FDA assigns a device with an FDA-approved IDE to one of two categories: (1) Experimental...

42 CFR 405.203 - FDA categorization of investigational devices.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2014-10-01 2014-10-01 false FDA categorization of investigational devices. 405... Coverage Decisions That Relate to Health Care Technology § 405.203 FDA categorization of investigational devices. (a) The FDA assigns a device with an FDA-approved IDE to one of two categories: (1) Experimental...

42 CFR 405.203 - FDA categorization of investigational devices.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2013-10-01 2013-10-01 false FDA categorization of investigational devices. 405... Coverage Decisions That Relate to Health Care Technology § 405.203 FDA categorization of investigational devices. (a) The FDA assigns a device with an FDA-approved IDE to one of two categories: (1) Experimental...

42 CFR 405.203 - FDA categorization of investigational devices.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false FDA categorization of investigational devices. 405... Coverage Decisions That Relate to Health Care Technology § 405.203 FDA categorization of investigational devices. (a) The FDA assigns a device with an FDA-approved IDE to one of two categories: (1) Experimental...

42 CFR 405.203 - FDA categorization of investigational devices.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2012-10-01 2012-10-01 false FDA categorization of investigational devices. 405... Coverage Decisions That Relate to Health Care Technology § 405.203 FDA categorization of investigational devices. (a) The FDA assigns a device with an FDA-approved IDE to one of two categories: (1) Experimental...

Regulatory Challenges for Cartilage Repair Technologies.

PubMed

McGowan, Kevin B; Stiegman, Glenn

2013-01-01

In the United States, few Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved options exist for the treatment of focal cartilage and osteochondral lesions. Developers of products for cartilage repair face many challenges to obtain marketing approval from the FDA. The objective of this review is to discuss the necessary steps for FDA application and approval for a new cartilage repair product. FDA Guidance Documents, FDA Panel Meetings, scientific organization recommendations, and clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed to demonstrate the current thinking of FDA and the scientific community on the regulatory process for cartilage repair therapies. Cartilage repair therapies can receive market approval from FDA as medical devices, drugs, or biologics, and the specific classification of product can affect the nonclinical, clinical, and regulatory strategy to bring the product to market. Recent FDA guidance gives an outline of the required elements to bring a cartilage repair product to market, although these standards are often very general. As a result, companies have to carefully craft their study patient population, comparator group, and clinical endpoint to best showcase their product's attributes. In addition, regulatory strategy and manufacturing process validation need to be considered early in the clinical study process to allow for timely product approval following the completion of clinical study. Although the path to regulatory approval for a cartilage repair therapy is challenging and time-consuming, proper clinical trial planning and attention to the details can eventually save companies time and money by bringing a product to the market in the most expeditious process possible.

Regulatory Challenges for Cartilage Repair Technologies

PubMed Central

Stiegman, Glenn

2013-01-01

In the United States, few Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved options exist for the treatment of focal cartilage and osteochondral lesions. Developers of products for cartilage repair face many challenges to obtain marketing approval from the FDA. The objective of this review is to discuss the necessary steps for FDA application and approval for a new cartilage repair product. FDA Guidance Documents, FDA Panel Meetings, scientific organization recommendations, and clinicaltrials.gov were reviewed to demonstrate the current thinking of FDA and the scientific community on the regulatory process for cartilage repair therapies. Cartilage repair therapies can receive market approval from FDA as medical devices, drugs, or biologics, and the specific classification of product can affect the nonclinical, clinical, and regulatory strategy to bring the product to market. Recent FDA guidance gives an outline of the required elements to bring a cartilage repair product to market, although these standards are often very general. As a result, companies have to carefully craft their study patient population, comparator group, and clinical endpoint to best showcase their product’s attributes. In addition, regulatory strategy and manufacturing process validation need to be considered early in the clinical study process to allow for timely product approval following the completion of clinical study. Although the path to regulatory approval for a cartilage repair therapy is challenging and time-consuming, proper clinical trial planning and attention to the details can eventually save companies time and money by bringing a product to the market in the most expeditious process possible. PMID:26069647

Medicare covers the majority of FDA-approved devices and Part B drugs, but restrictions and discrepancies remain.

PubMed

Chambers, James D; May, Katherine E; Neumann, Peter J

2013-06-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Medicare use different standards to determine, first, whether a new drug or medical device can be marketed to the public and, second, if the federal health insurance program will pay for use of the drug or device. This discrepancy creates hurdles and uncertainty for drug and device manufacturers. We analyzed discrepancies between FDA approval and Medicare national coverage determinations for sixty-nine devices and Part B drugs approved during 1999-2011. We found that Medicare covered FDA-approved drugs or devices 80 percent of the time. However, Medicare often added conditions beyond FDA approval, particularly for devices and most often restricting coverage to patients with the most severe disease. In some instances, Medicare was less restrictive than the FDA. Our findings highlight the importance for drug and device makers of anticipating Medicare's needs when conducting clinical studies to support their products. Our findings also provide important insights for the FDA's and Medicare's pilot parallel review program.

78 FR 29141 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes; Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-05-17

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0893] Center for Devices and Radiological Health Appeals Processes; Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff... Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled ``Center for Devices and...

21 CFR 801.57 - Discontinuation of legacy FDA identification numbers assigned to devices.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false Discontinuation of legacy FDA identification... Device Identification § 801.57 Discontinuation of legacy FDA identification numbers assigned to devices... been assigned an FDA labeler code to facilitate use of NHRIC or NDC numbers may continue to use that...

78 FR 950 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-01-07

..., FDA- 2012-M-0965, FDA-2012-M-0968, FDA-2012-M-1011, and FDA-2012-M-1013] Medical Devices; Availability...\\ February 16, 2011. Adjustable Gastric Banding System. P100049, FDA-2012-M-0893....... Torax Medical, Inc.... Trabecular Micro- Bypass Stent and Inserter. P110007, FDA-2012-M-0734....... Abbott Medical Healon[supreg...

Scouting For Approval: Lessons on Medical Device Regulation in an Era of Crowdfunding from Scanadu's "Scout".

PubMed

Smith, Colleen

2015-01-01

Internet crowdfunding, a new and increasingly popular method of raising capital to develop products and businesses, has recently come into conflict with the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulation of medical devices. This Article examines the issues that arise when companies pre-sell medical devices via crowdfunding campaigns before gaining FDA approval of the devices. Because Internet crowdfunding has only been in use for a few years, little has been written about it academically, particularly about its interaction with FDA regulations. The rising interest in crowdfunding, coupled with the downturn in investment in the American medical device industry, make this a salient issue that is ripe for FDA review. This Article uses the crowdfunding campaign Scanadu, a medical device company, conducted in 2013 to raise money to develop its in-home diagnostic device, the "Scout," as a starting point for this analysis. Because it is extremely costly to develop a device and obtain FDA approval, medical device companies should be able to utilize crowdfunding to raise the necessary capital. However, because of the possible dangers medical devices pose, FDA needs to review the risks created by allowing companies to crowdfund medical devices and should issue guidance to help companies comply with FDA regulations while still allowing them to take advantage of the benefits of crowdfunding. This guidance should ensure the continued commitment to consumer safety that is at the core of FDA regulation.

75 FR 20441 - Authorization of Emergency Use of Certain In Vitro Diagnostic Devices; Availability

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-19

...The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of 10 Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) (the Authorizations) several of which were amended after initial issuance, for certain in vitro diagnostic devices. FDA also is announcing an amendment to the EUA for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Swine Influenza Virus Real-time RT-PCR Detection Panel authorized on April 27, 2009. FDA is issuing the Authorizations and amendments thereto under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). The Authorizations contain, among other things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized in vitro diagnostics. The Authorizations follow the determination by the Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Charles E. Johnson (the Acting Secretary), that a public health emergency exists involving Swine Influenza A (now known as 2009 H1N1 Influenza A, or 2009 H1N1 flu) that affects, or has the significant potential to affect, national security. On the basis of such determination, the Acting Secretary declared an emergency justifying the authorization of the emergency use of certain in vitro diagnostics, accompanied by emergency use information subject to the terms of any authorization issued under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). The Authorizations, which include explanations of the reasons for their issuance or reissuance, are reprinted in this document.

21 CFR 830.100 - FDA accreditation of an issuing agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false FDA accreditation of an issuing agency. 830.100... (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION FDA Accreditation of an Issuing Agency § 830.100 FDA... issuing agency. (b) Accreditation criteria. FDA may accredit an organization as an issuing agency, if the...

FDA & digital mammography: why has FDA required full field digital mammography systems to be regulated as potentially dangerous devices for more than 10 years?

PubMed

Nields, Morgan W

2010-05-01

Digital mammography is routinely used in the US to screen asymptomatic women for breast cancer and currently over 50% of US screening centers employ the technology. In spite of FDAs knowledge that digital mammography requires less radiation than film mammography and that its equivalence has been proven in a prospective randomized trial, the agency has failed to allow the technology market access via the 510(k) pre market clearance pathway. As a result of the restrictive Pre Market Approval process, only four suppliers have received FDA approval. The resulting lack of a competitive market has kept costs high, restricted technological innovation, and impeded product improvements as a result of PMA requirements. Meanwhile, at least twelve companies are on the market in the EU and the resulting competitive market has lowered costs and provided increased technological choice. A cultural change with new leadership occurred in the early 90's at FDA. The historical culture at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health of collaboration and education gave way to one characterized by a lack of reliance on outside scientific expertise, tolerance of decision making by unqualified reviewers, and an emphasis on enforcement and punishment. Digital mammography fell victim to this cultural change and as a result major innovations like breast CT and computer aided detection technologies are also withheld from the market. The medical device law, currently under review by the Institute of Medicine, should be amended by the Congress so that new technologies can be appropriately classified in accordance with the risk based assessment classification system detailed in Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A panel of scientific experts chartered by the NIH or IOM should determine the classification appropriate for new technologies that have no historical regulatory framework. This would be binding on FDA. Unless the law is changed we will likely again experience additional debacles similar to that of digital mammography where important technology has been withheld from millions of women for more than a decade. Copyright 2010 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

21 CFR 830.220 - Termination of FDA service as an issuing agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false Termination of FDA service as an issuing agency... SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION FDA as an Issuing Agency § 830.220 Termination of FDA service as an issuing agency. (a) FDA may end our services as an issuing agency if we...

Effect of warning placement on the information processing of college students reading an OTC drug facts panel.

PubMed

Bhansali, Archita H; Sangani, Darshan S; Mhatre, Shivani K; Sansgiry, Sujit S

2018-01-01

To compare three over-the-counter (OTC) Drug Facts panel versions for information processing optimization among college students. University of Houston students (N = 210) participated in a cross-sectional survey from January to May 2010. A current FDA label was compared to two experimental labels developed using the theory of CHREST to test information processing by re-positioning the warning information within the Drug Facts panel. Congruency was defined as placing like information together. Information processing was evaluated using the OTC medication Label Evaluation Process Model (LEPM): label comprehension, ease-of-use, attitude toward the product, product evaluation, and purchase intention. Experimental label with chunked congruent information (uses-directions-other information-warnings) was rated significantly higher than the current FDA label and had the best average scores among the LEPM information processing variables. If replications uphold these findings, the FDA label design might be revised to improve information processing.

76 FR 12743 - Medical Device Reporting; Malfunction Reporting Frequency

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-08

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0097] Medical Device Reporting; Malfunction Reporting Frequency AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS... compliance with FDA's Medical Device Reporting regulation, pending future FDA notice under the Federal Food...

Medical devices; exemptions from premarket notification; class II devices--FDA, Final rule.

PubMed

1998-11-03

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is codifying the exemption from premarket notification of all 62 class II (special controls) devices listed as exempt in a January 21, 1998, Federal Register notice, subject to the limitations on exemptions. FDA has determined that for these exempted devices, manufacturers' submissions of premarket notifications are unnecessary to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. These devices will remain subject to current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations and other general controls. This rulemaking implements new authorities delegated to FDA under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA).

21 CFR 830.210 - Eligibility for use of FDA as an issuing agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false Eligibility for use of FDA as an issuing agency... SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION FDA as an Issuing Agency § 830.210 Eligibility for use of FDA as an issuing agency. When FDA acts as an issuing agency, any labeler will be...

Delegations of authority and organization; Center for Devices and Radiological Health--FDA. Final rule.

PubMed

1991-10-10

The Commissioner of Food and Drugs is redelegating authorities to certain officials of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) to temporarily suspend premarket approval applications and to recall devices in the event those devices would cause serious adverse consequences to health or death. These authorities were given to the FDA by the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990.

21 CFR 830.120 - Responsibilities of an FDA-accredited issuing agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false Responsibilities of an FDA-accredited issuing... HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION FDA Accreditation of an Issuing Agency § 830.120 Responsibilities of an FDA-accredited issuing agency. To maintain its accreditation, an...

21 CFR 812.30 - FDA action on applications.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2012-04-01 2012-04-01 false FDA action on applications. 812.30 Section 812.30...) MEDICAL DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Application and Administrative Action § 812.30 FDA action on applications. (a) Approval or disapproval. FDA will notify the sponsor in writing of the date...

21 CFR 812.30 - FDA action on applications.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false FDA action on applications. 812.30 Section 812.30...) MEDICAL DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Application and Administrative Action § 812.30 FDA action on applications. (a) Approval or disapproval. FDA will notify the sponsor in writing of the date...

21 CFR 812.30 - FDA action on applications.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false FDA action on applications. 812.30 Section 812.30...) MEDICAL DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Application and Administrative Action § 812.30 FDA action on applications. (a) Approval or disapproval. FDA will notify the sponsor in writing of the date...

21 CFR 812.30 - FDA action on applications.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2013-04-01 2013-04-01 false FDA action on applications. 812.30 Section 812.30...) MEDICAL DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Application and Administrative Action § 812.30 FDA action on applications. (a) Approval or disapproval. FDA will notify the sponsor in writing of the date...

21 CFR 812.30 - FDA action on applications.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false FDA action on applications. 812.30 Section 812.30...) MEDICAL DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Application and Administrative Action § 812.30 FDA action on applications. (a) Approval or disapproval. FDA will notify the sponsor in writing of the date...

The nightmare of FDA clearance/approval to market: perception or reality?

PubMed

Tylenda, C A

1996-09-01

Over the last few years the Center for Device Evaluation and Research (CDRH) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received annually over 16 thousand submissions related to medical devices. Over 10,000 of these are major submissions which include applications to conduct clinical trials and applications to market medical devices for a specified indication for use. Each application is carefully considered. FDA personnel work closely with applicants to ensure that clinical trial design minimizes risk to the patients and maximizes benefit with respect to addressing the safety and effectiveness of the device being tested. Applicants are given every opportunity to provide additional information when necessary to assure that applications to market medical devices are complete. Applicants have the opportunity to meet with FDA staff prior to submitting applications in cases where the application is other than a straight forward, uncomplicated submission. In addition, FDA assists applicants through the development of guidance documents, which discuss the type of information that would be beneficial to include in a submission. The Division of Small Manufacturers Assistance at FDA is dedicated to helping interested persons understand the clearance/approval process. This paper will discuss the role of FDA in the regulation of medical devices, with an emphasis on the pathway to obtaining permission to market medical devices in the United States.

US FDA perspective on regulatory issues affecting circulatory assist devices.

PubMed

Sapirstein, Wolf; Chen, Eric; Swain, Julie; Zuckerman, Bram

2006-11-01

There has been a rapid development in mechanical circulatory support systems in the decade since the US FDA first approved a mechanical device to provide the circulatory support lacking from a failing heart. Devices are presently approved for marketing by the FDA to replace a failing ventricle, the Ventricular Assist Device or the entire heart, Total Artificial Heart. Contemporaneous with, and permitted by, improvement in technology and design, devices have evolved from units located extracorporeally to paracorporeal systems and totally implanted devices. Clinical studies have demonstrated a parallel improvement in the homeostatic adequacy of the circulatory support provided. Thus, while the circulatory support was initially tolerated for short periods to permit recovery of cardiac function, this technology eventually provided effective circulatory support for increasing periods that permitted the FDA to approve devices for bridging patients in end-stage cardiac failure awaiting transplant and eventually a device for destination therapy where patients in end-stage heart failure are not cardiac transplant candidates. The approved devices have relied on displacement pumps that mimic the pulsatility of the physiological system. Accelerated development of more compact devices that rely on alternative pump mechanisms have challenged both the FDA and device manufacturers to assure that the regulatory requirements for safety and effectiveness are met for use of mechanical circulatory support systems in expanded target populations. An FDA regulatory perspective is reviewed of what can be a potentially critical healthcare issue.

21 CFR 807.100 - FDA action on a premarket notification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false FDA action on a premarket notification. 807.100... IMPORTERS OF DEVICES Premarket Notification Procedures § 807.100 FDA action on a premarket notification. (a) After review of a premarket notification, FDA will: (1) Issue an order declaring the device to be...

21 CFR 812.42 - FDA and IRB approval.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false FDA and IRB approval. 812.42 Section 812.42 Food... DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Responsibilities of Sponsors § 812.42 FDA and IRB approval. A sponsor shall not begin an investigation or part of an investigation until an IRB and FDA have both...

21 CFR 812.42 - FDA and IRB approval.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false FDA and IRB approval. 812.42 Section 812.42 Food... DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Responsibilities of Sponsors § 812.42 FDA and IRB approval. A sponsor shall not begin an investigation or part of an investigation until an IRB and FDA have both...

21 CFR 807.100 - FDA action on a premarket notification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2012-04-01 2012-04-01 false FDA action on a premarket notification. 807.100... IMPORTERS OF DEVICES Premarket Notification Procedures § 807.100 FDA action on a premarket notification. (a) After review of a premarket notification, FDA will: (1) Issue an order declaring the device to be...

21 CFR 807.100 - FDA action on a premarket notification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2013-04-01 2013-04-01 false FDA action on a premarket notification. 807.100... IMPORTERS OF DEVICES Premarket Notification Procedures § 807.100 FDA action on a premarket notification. (a) After review of a premarket notification, FDA will: (1) Issue an order declaring the device to be...

21 CFR 812.42 - FDA and IRB approval.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2013-04-01 2013-04-01 false FDA and IRB approval. 812.42 Section 812.42 Food... DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Responsibilities of Sponsors § 812.42 FDA and IRB approval. A sponsor shall not begin an investigation or part of an investigation until an IRB and FDA have both...

21 CFR 830.110 - Application for accreditation as an issuing agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION FDA Accreditation of an Issuing Agency.... (1) An applicant seeking initial FDA accreditation as an issuing agency shall notify FDA of its desire to be accredited by sending a notification by email to [email protected]fda.hhs.gov, or by correspondence to...

21 CFR 807.100 - FDA action on a premarket notification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false FDA action on a premarket notification. 807.100... IMPORTERS OF DEVICES Premarket Notification Procedures § 807.100 FDA action on a premarket notification. (a) After review of a premarket notification, FDA will: (1) Issue an order declaring the device to be...

21 CFR 812.42 - FDA and IRB approval.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false FDA and IRB approval. 812.42 Section 812.42 Food... DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Responsibilities of Sponsors § 812.42 FDA and IRB approval. A sponsor shall not begin an investigation or part of an investigation until an IRB and FDA have both...

21 CFR 812.42 - FDA and IRB approval.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2012-04-01 2012-04-01 false FDA and IRB approval. 812.42 Section 812.42 Food... DEVICES INVESTIGATIONAL DEVICE EXEMPTIONS Responsibilities of Sponsors § 812.42 FDA and IRB approval. A sponsor shall not begin an investigation or part of an investigation until an IRB and FDA have both...

21 CFR 807.100 - FDA action on a premarket notification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false FDA action on a premarket notification. 807.100... IMPORTERS OF DEVICES Premarket Notification Procedures § 807.100 FDA action on a premarket notification. (a) After review of a premarket notification, FDA will: (1) Issue an order declaring the device to be...

76 FR 41506 - Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff on In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices; Availability

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-14

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0215] Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff on In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Devices; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is...

The FDA's role in medical device clinical studies of human subjects

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Saviola, James

2005-03-01

This paper provides an overview of the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) role as a regulatory agency in medical device clinical studies involving human subjects. The FDA's regulations and responsibilities are explained and the device application process discussed. The specific medical device regulatory authorities are described as they apply to the development and clinical study of retinal visual prosthetic devices. The FDA medical device regulations regarding clinical studies of human subjects are intended to safeguard the rights and safety of subjects. The data gathered in pre-approval clinical studies provide a basis of valid scientific evidence in order to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a medical device. The importance of a working understanding of applicable medical device regulations from the beginning of the device development project is emphasized particularly for novel, complex products such as implantable visual prosthetic devices.

Delegations of authority and organization; Center for Devices and Radiological Health--FDA. Final rule.

PubMed

1994-06-17

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the regulations for delegations of authority relating to general redelegations of authority from the Associate Commissioner of Regulatory Affairs to certain FDA officials in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The redelegation provides these officials with authority to grant or deny certain citizen petitions for exemption or variance from medical device tracking requirements. This action is being taken to facilitate expeditious handling of citizen petitions. FDA is also issuing a conforming amendment to the medical device tracking regulations to make the regulations consistent.

FDA recognition of consensus standards in the premarket notification program.

PubMed

Marlowe, D E; Phillips, P J

1998-01-01

"The FDA has long advocated the use of standards as a significant contributor to safety and effectiveness of medical devices," Center for Devices and Radiological Health's (CDRH) Donald E. Marlowe and Philip J. Phillips note in the following article, highlighting the latest U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans for use of standards. They note that the important role standards can play has been reinforced as part of FDA reengineering efforts undertaken in anticipation of an increased regulatory work-load and declining agency resources. As part of its restructuring effort, the FDA announced last spring that it would recognize some consensus standards for use in the device approval process. Under the new 510(k) paradigm--the FDA's proposal to streamline premarket review, which includes incorporating the use of standards in the review of 510(k) submissions--the FDA will accept proof of compliance with standards as evidence of device safety and effectiveness. Manufacturers may submit declarations of conformity to standards instead of following the traditional review process. The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60601 series of consensus standards, which deals with many safety issues common to electrical medical devices, was the first to be chosen for regulatory review. Other standards developed by nationally or internationally recognized standards development organizations, such as AAMI, may be eligible for use to ensure review requirements. In the following article, Marlowe and Phillips describe the FDA's plans to use standards in the device review process. The article focuses on the use of standards for medical device review, the development of the standards recognition process for reviewing devices, and the anticipated benefits of using standards to review devices. One important development has been the recent implementation of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), which advocates the use of standards in the device review process. In implementing the legislation, the FDA published in the Federal Register a list of standards to which manufacturers may declare conformity. Visit AAMI's Web site at www.aami.org/news/fda.standards for a copy of the list and for information on nominating other standards for official recognition by the agency. The FDA expects that use of standards will benefit the agency and manufacturers alike: "We estimate that in time, reliance on declarations of conformity to recognized standards could save the agency considerable resources while reducing the regulatory obstacles to entry to domestic and international markets," state the authors.

US Food and Drug Administration Perspectives on Clinical Mass Spectrometry.

PubMed

Lathrop, Julia Tait; Jeffery, Douglas A; Shea, Yvonne R; Scholl, Peter F; Chan, Maria M

2016-01-01

Mass spectrometry-based in vitro diagnostic devices that measure proteins and peptides are underutilized in clinical practice, and none has been cleared or approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for marketing or for use in clinical trials. One way to increase their utilization is through enhanced interactions between the FDA and the clinical mass spectrometry community to improve the validation and regulatory review of these devices. As a reference point from which to develop these interactions, this article surveys the FDA's regulation of mass spectrometry-based devices, explains how the FDA uses guidance documents and standards in the review process, and describes the FDA's previous outreach to stakeholders. Here we also discuss how further communication and collaboration with the clinical mass spectrometry communities can identify opportunities for the FDA to provide help in the development of mass spectrometry-based devices and enhance their entry into the clinic. © 2015 American Association for Clinical Chemistry.

21 CFR 806.30 - FDA access to records.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false FDA access to records. 806.30 Section 806.30 Food... DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICES; REPORTS OF CORRECTIONS AND REMOVALS Reports and Records § 806.30 FDA access to... designated by FDA and under section 704(e) of the act, permit such officer or employee at all reasonable...

21 CFR 806.30 - FDA access to records.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2013-04-01 2013-04-01 false FDA access to records. 806.30 Section 806.30 Food... DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICES; REPORTS OF CORRECTIONS AND REMOVALS Reports and Records § 806.30 FDA access to... designated by FDA and under section 704(e) of the act, permit such officer or employee at all reasonable...

21 CFR 806.30 - FDA access to records.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2012-04-01 2012-04-01 false FDA access to records. 806.30 Section 806.30 Food... DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICES; REPORTS OF CORRECTIONS AND REMOVALS Reports and Records § 806.30 FDA access to... designated by FDA and under section 704(e) of the act, permit such officer or employee at all reasonable...

21 CFR 806.30 - FDA access to records.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2014-04-01 2014-04-01 false FDA access to records. 806.30 Section 806.30 Food... DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICES; REPORTS OF CORRECTIONS AND REMOVALS Reports and Records § 806.30 FDA access to... designated by FDA and under section 704(e) of the act, permit such officer or employee at all reasonable...

21 CFR 806.30 - FDA access to records.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false FDA access to records. 806.30 Section 806.30 Food... DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICES; REPORTS OF CORRECTIONS AND REMOVALS Reports and Records § 806.30 FDA access to... designated by FDA and under section 704(e) of the act, permit such officer or employee at all reasonable...

FDA's perspectives on cardiovascular devices.

PubMed

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

2009-06-01

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.

21 CFR 814.47 - Temporary suspension of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.47 Temporary suspension of approval of a PMA. (a) Scope. (1) This section describes the procedures that FDA will follow in... the original PMA, as well as any PMA supplement(s), for a medical device. (2) FDA will issue an order...

21 CFR 814.47 - Temporary suspension of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.47 Temporary suspension of approval of a PMA. (a) Scope. (1) This section describes the procedures that FDA will follow in... the original PMA, as well as any PMA supplement(s), for a medical device. (2) FDA will issue an order...

21 CFR 814.47 - Temporary suspension of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.47 Temporary suspension of approval of a PMA. (a) Scope. (1) This section describes the procedures that FDA will follow in... the original PMA, as well as any PMA supplement(s), for a medical device. (2) FDA will issue an order...

FDA publishes checklist of Y2K high-risk devices.

PubMed

1999-09-01

Key points. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has developed a list of types of medical devices that have the potential for the most serious consequences for patients should they fail because of Y2K-related problems. This list of computer-controlled potentially high-risk devices can provide a guide to health care facilities regarding the types of devices that should receive priority in their assessment and remediation of medical devices. The list may change as the FDA receives comments on the types of devices included in the list.

Guidance for the emergency use of unapproved medical devices; availability--FDA. Notice.

PubMed

1985-10-22

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing guidance, developed by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), with respect to those emergency situations in which the agency would not object to a physician's using a potentially life-saving medical device for a use for which the device ordinarily is required to have, but does not have, an approved application for premarket approval or an investigational device exemption. The guidance is contained in a document entitled "guidance for the Emergency Use of Unapproved Medical Devices."

Human factors and the FDA's goals: improved medical device design.

PubMed

Burlington, D B

1996-01-01

The Food and Drug Administration's new human factors design requirements for medical devices were previewed by the director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at AAMI/FDA's Human Factors in Medical Devices Conference held in September 1995. Director Bruce Burlington, MD, said the FDA plans to take a closer look at how new medical devices are designed to ensure proper attention has been paid to human error prevention. As a medical practitioner who has witnessed use-related deaths and injuries, Burlington stressed the importance of the medical community's reporting use errors as they occur and manufacturers' creating easy-to-use labeling and packaging. He also called for simplicity and quality of design in medical products, and asked for a consolidated effort of all professionals involved in human factors issues to help implement and further the FDA's new human factors program. An edited version of his presentation appears here.

Standards for Lithotripter Performance

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Schultheiss, Reiner; Doerffel, Michael

2008-09-01

Standards for lithotripsy have been developed by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the FDA. In addition to the existing regulations and norms for the manufacturers, special standards were developed to address a treatment method developed in the early 1980's using extracorporeal shock waves. Initially, the FDA regulated the premarket approval process for lithotripters as a Class III device but reclassified lithotripters in 2000 to a Class II device. The corresponding guidance document for showing the substantial equivalence of new devices with predicate devices will be described in detail. The FDA guidance document is very useful in helping device manufacturers: (i) develop technical performance testing for a shock wave lithotripter within the parameters of an FDA submission, and (ii) conduct clinical performance testing via at least one clinical confirmation study with a small number of subjects. Unfortunately although the submitted data are available at the FDA they are not available in the marketplace and this causes difficulties for physicians in deciding which device to use. The results of the technical performance testing of the LithoGold™ are provided.

21 CFR 803.3 - How does FDA define the terms used in this part?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false How does FDA define the terms used in this part... SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING General Provisions § 803.3 How does FDA..., for an estimated period of time. FDA, we, or us means the Food and Drug Administration. Five-day...

21 CFR 803.3 - How does FDA define the terms used in this part?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false How does FDA define the terms used in this part... SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING General Provisions § 803.3 How does FDA..., for an estimated period of time. FDA, we, or us means the Food and Drug Administration. Five-day...

21 CFR 803.3 - How does FDA define the terms used in this part?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2013-04-01 2013-04-01 false How does FDA define the terms used in this part... SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING General Provisions § 803.3 How does FDA..., for an estimated period of time. FDA, we, or us means the Food and Drug Administration. Five-day...

21 CFR 803.3 - How does FDA define the terms used in this part?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2012-04-01 2012-04-01 false How does FDA define the terms used in this part... SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING General Provisions § 803.3 How does FDA..., for an estimated period of time. FDA, we, or us means the Food and Drug Administration. Five-day...

FDA regulation of labeling and promotional claims in therapeutic color vision devices: a tutorial.

PubMed

Drum, Bruce

2004-01-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for determining whether medical device manufacturers have provided reasonable assurance, based on valid scientific evidence, that new devices are safe and effective for their intended use before they are introduced into the U.S. market. Most existing color vision devices pose so little risk that their manufacturers are not required to submit a premarket notification [510(k)] to FDA prior to market. However, even low-risk devices may not be acceptable if they are marketed on the basis of misleading or excessive claims. Although most color vision devices are diagnostic, two types that are therapeutic rather than diagnostic are colored lenses intended to improve deficient color vision and colored lenses intended to improve reading performance. Both of these devices have presented special regulatory challenges to FDA because the intended uses and effectiveness claims initially proposed by the manufacturers were not supported by valid scientific evidence. In each instance, however, FDA worked with the manufacturer to restrict labeling and promotional claims in ways that were consistent with the available device performance data and that allowed for the legal marketing of the device.

New technology in electrophysiology: FDA process and perspective.

PubMed

Selzman, Kimberly A; Fellman, Mark; Farb, Andrew; de Del Castillo, Sergio; Zuckerman, Bram

2016-10-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a large regulatory agency that monitors everything from food, tobacco, and veterinary medicine to pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices. The Mission statement of the CDRH, one of the Centers of the FDA, in its most succinct form is to protect and promote public health. This is accomplished through timely and continued access to safe, effective, and high quality medical devices. This paper aims to review the overarching principles of the Agency's review process for cardiac devices as well as highlight some of the newer programs that FDA has engaged in to facilitate innovation, device development, research, and timely market approval.

The debate on FDA reform: a view from the U.S. Senate. Food and Drug Administration.

PubMed

Baker, R

1995-09-01

The recently released concept paper on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reform from Republican Senator, Nancy Kassebaum, is reviewed. Senator Kassebaum chairs the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources that will influence the Senate's action on FDA reform. The paper outlines the Senator's priorities for Congressional legislation on FDA reform in the following areas: the FDA mission and its accountability; creation of a Performance Review Panel and Industry Advisory Council; approval and access of products for seriously ill patients; the FDA's responsibility for good manufacturing practices; establishment of an Ombudsman Office for resolving disputes; dissemination of information on unapproved uses of approved products; and approval standards for new drugs.

Incremental Revisions across the Life Span of Ophthalmic Devices after Initial Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval, 1979-2015.

PubMed

Gopal, Anand D; Rathi, Vinay K; Teng, Christopher C; Del Priore, Lucian; Ross, Joseph S

2017-08-01

To characterize the frequency, nature, and regulatory mechanisms by which ophthalmic devices are iteratively modified after initial Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Premarket Approval (PMA). Retrospective cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA data. Ophthalmic devices initially approved via the FDA's PMA pathway between January 1, 1979 and December 31, 2015. We used the FDA's PMA Database to identify and characterize initial approvals and subsequent postmarket modifications to Class III ophthalmic devices. The FDA Recalls Database was used to identify associated safety events. Median iterated life span (timespan across which modifications occurred after initial PMA) and median number of supplements approved per device, by device type, and overall, stratified by regulatory pathway and modification type. Between 1979 and 2015, the FDA approved 168 original ophthalmic devices via the PMA pathway and 2813 subsequent modifications. More than one third (n = 64; 38%) of original approvals were intraocular lenses. Overall, devices underwent a median of 11 postmarket modifications (interquartile range [IQR], 3-24.8) across a median 10.0-year iterated life span (IQR, 4.1-16.7). The majority of devices (n = 144; 86%) underwent more than 1 postapproval modification, including more than 1 design modification (n = 84; 50%). The median number of changes altering device design or labeling was 3.5 (IQR, 1-9). Although manufacturing alterations (n = 834 of 2813; 30%) were the most frequent type of revision, changes involving device design (n = 667; 24%) and labeling (n = 417; 15%) were common. Recalled devices underwent more frequent postapproval modifications per year (median, 1.4; IQR, 0.7-2.3; mean, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.9) in the period preceding recall than did nonrecalled devices (median, 0.5; IQR, 0.2-1.1; mean, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-1.0) across their market approval period (P < 0.001). Most ophthalmic devices approved via the FDA's PMA pathway have undergone extensive revisions, including serial design and labeling changes, since their initial approvals, often without supporting clinical data. Ophthalmologists should take into consideration that cumulative revisions may render the clinical evidence that supported an original FDA approval less relevant to newer device models. Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

78 FR 24425 - Assay Migration Studies for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-25

... approach to gain FDA approval of Class III or certain licensed in vitro diagnostic devices in cases when a... approach to gain FDA approval of Class III or certain licensed in vitro diagnostic devices in cases when a... fulfilled in order for a sponsor to utilize the migration study approach in support of the change. The FDA...

FDA-CDC Antimicrobial Resistance Isolate Bank: a Publicly Available Resource To Support Research, Development, and Regulatory Requirements.

PubMed

Lutgring, Joseph D; Machado, María-José; Benahmed, Faiza H; Conville, Patricia; Shawar, Ribhi M; Patel, Jean; Brown, Allison C

2018-02-01

The FDA-CDC Antimicrobial Resistance Isolate Bank was created in July 2015 as a publicly available resource to combat antimicrobial resistance. It is a curated repository of bacterial isolates with an assortment of clinically important resistance mechanisms that have been phenotypically and genotypically characterized. In the first 2 years of operation, the bank offered 14 panels comprising 496 unique isolates and had filled 486 orders from 394 institutions throughout the United States. New panels are being added. Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

Improving the postmarket surveillance of total joint arthroplasty devices.

PubMed

Mahomed, Nizar N; Syed, Khalid; Sledge, Clement B; Brennan, Troyen A; Liang, Matthew H

2008-01-01

To evaluate the FDA's approval process and postmarket surveillance strategies for THR devices. The FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) 510k releasable database was used to document approved THR devices. The CDRH Medical Device Reporting data files were used to study the efficiency of the FDA's post-market surveillance system. Manufacturers were contacted to supply information regarding their implants. Medline was searched between 1966-1996 to determine the percentage of THR devices with published data on clinical outcomes. Between 1976 and 1996, 701 new THR devices were approved by the Substantial Equivalent (SE) route and 34 were approved on the basis of Premarket Approval PMA. The number of approvals doubled between 1991-1995 compared to 1976-1990. Seventy-four different manufacturers obtained approval to market THR devices. Only four manufacturers obtained approval via the PMA application. Under Mandatory Device Reporting all revision arthroplasties should be reported. Using data from 2 independent services for which we had US hospital discharge data in 1993 we estimate that only 3% of all revision THR were reported to the FDA. Manufacturers of hip implants failed to provide useful information. Medline search revealed only 15% of the approved THR devices had published data on outcomes. Current FDA premarket approval and postmarket surveillance strategies fail to provide information for evidence-based selection of THR devices. Recommendations are made to avert problems with device failures.

Safety and Efficacy of the BrainPort V100 Device in Individuals Blinded by Traumatic Injury

DTIC Science & Technology

2016-12-01

the functional performance of the BrainPort® V200 device, a non-surgical, FDA approved, sensory substitution system, in persons who are profoundly...The BrainPort V200 device is a wearable, non-surgical, FDA approved, prosthetic device intended for people who are profoundly blind. The BrainPort...BrainPort V200 electronic vision aid (described previously) has been developed under this research. FDA clearance to market the V200 in the US is expected

The ABCs of the FDA: A Primer on the Role of the United States Food and Drug Administration in Medical Device Approvals and IR Research.

PubMed

Adamovich, Ashley; Park, Susie; Siskin, Gary P; Englander, Meridith J; Mandato, Kenneth D; Herr, Allen; Keating, Lawrence J

2015-09-01

The role of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in medical device regulation is important to device-driven specialties such as interventional radiology. Whether it is through industry-sponsored trials during the approval process for new devices or investigator-initiated research prospectively evaluating the role of existing devices for new or established procedures, interaction with the FDA is an integral part of performing significant research in interventional radiology. This article reviews the potential areas of interface between the FDA and interventional radiology, as understanding these areas is necessary to continue the innovation that is the hallmark of this specialty. Copyright © 2015 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Federal regulation of vision enhancement devices for normal and abnormal vision

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Drum, Bruce

2006-09-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the safety and effectiveness of medical devices and biological products as well as food and drugs. The FDA defines a device as a product that is intended, by physical means, to diagnose, treat, or prevent disease, or to affect the structure or function of the body. All vision enhancement devices fulfill this definition because they are intended to affect a function (vision) of the body. In practice, however, FDA historically has drawn a distinction between devices that are intended to enhance low vision as opposed to normal vision. Most low vision aids are therapeutic devices intended to compensate for visual impairment, and are actively regulated according to their level of risk to the patient. The risk level is usually low (e.g. Class I, exempt from 510(k) submission requirements for magnifiers that do not touch the eye), but can be as high as Class III (requiring a clinical trial and Premarket Approval (PMA) application) for certain implanted and prosthetic devices (e.g. intraocular telescopes and prosthetic retinal implants). In contrast, the FDA usually does not actively enforce its regulations for devices that are intended to enhance normal vision, are low risk, and do not have a medical intended use. However, if an implanted or prosthetic device were developed for enhancing normal vision, the FDA would likely decide to regulate it actively, because its intended use would entail a substantial medical risk to the user. Companies developing such devices should contact the FDA at an early stage to clarify their regulatory status.

"Off Label" Use of FDA-Approved Devices and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

PubMed

Kopans, Daniel B

2015-11-01

The purpose of this article is to clarify for radiologists the meaning of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval with respect to Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT). DBT is a major improvement over 2D mammography in the detection of cancers (sensitivity) and the reduction in recalls resulting from screening (specificity). Most imaging systems that have been approved by the FDA are used "off label" for breast imaging. Although the FDA determines which claims a manufacturer can make for a device, physicians may use approved devices, such as DBT, off label to provide better patient care.

FDA adverse Event Problem Codes: standardizing the classification of device and patient problems associated with medical device use.

PubMed

Reed, Terrie L; Kaufman-Rivi, Diana

2010-01-01

The broad array of medical devices and the potential for device failures, malfunctions, and other adverse events associated with each device creates a challenge for public health device surveillance programs. Coding reported events by type of device problem provides one method for identifying a potential signal of a larger device issue. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Event Problem Codes that are used to report adverse events previously lacked a structured set of controls for code development and maintenance. Over time this led to inconsistent, ambiguous, and duplicative concepts being added to the code set on an ad-hoc basis. Recognizing the limitation of its coding system the FDA set out to update the system to improve its usefulness within FDA and as a basis of a global standard to identify important patient and device outcomes throughout the medical community. In 2004, FDA and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby NCI agreed to provide terminology development and maintenance services to all FDA Centers. Under this MOU, CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics (OSB) convened a cross-Center workgroup and collaborated with staff at NCI Enterprise Vocabulary Service (EVS) to streamline the Patient and Device Problem Codes and integrate them into the NCI Thesaurus and Meta-Thesaurus. This initiative included many enhancements to the Event Problem Codes aimed at improving code selection as well as improving adverse event report analysis. LIMITATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff resources, database concerns, and limited collaboration with external groups in the initial phases of the project are discussed. Adverse events associated with medical device use can be better understood when they are reported using a consistent and well-defined code set. This FDA initiative was an attempt to improve the structure and add control mechanisms to an existing code set, improve analysis tools that will better identify device safety trends, and improve the ability to prevent or mitigate effects of adverse events associated with medical device use.

Photobiomodulation therapy for androgenetic alopecia: A clinician's guide to home-use devices cleared by the Federal Drug Administration.

PubMed

Dodd, Erin M; Winter, Margo A; Hordinsky, Maria K; Sadick, Neil S; Farah, Ronda S

2018-06-01

The market for home-use photobiomodulation devices to treat androgenetic alopecia has rapidly expanded, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recently cleared many devices for this purpose. Patients increasingly seek the advice of dermatologists regarding the safety and efficacy of these hair loss treatments. The purpose of this guide was threefold: (1) to identify all home-use photobiomodulation therapy devices with FDA-clearance for treatment of androgenetic alopecia; (2) to review device design, features and existing clinical evidence; and (3) to discuss practical considerations of photobiomodulation therapy, including patient suitability, treatment goals, safety, and device selection. A search of the FDA 510(k) Premarket Notification database was conducted using product code "OAP" to identify all home-use devices that are FDA-cleared to treat androgenetic alopecia. Thirteen commercially available devices were identified and compared. Devices varied in shape, wavelength, light sources, technical features, price, and level of clinical evidence. To date, there are no head-to-head studies comparing the efficacy of these devices. Photobiomodulation therapy devices have an excellent safety profile and mounting evidence supporting their efficacy. However, long-term, high quality studies comparing these devices in diverse populations are lacking. As these devices become increasingly popular, dermatologists should be familiar with this treatment modality to add to their therapeutic armamentarium. AGA, androgenetic alopecia; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; IEC, International Electrotechnical Commission; LED, light-emitting diode; PBMT, photobiomodulation therapy.

Medical devices; hematology and pathology devices: reclassification of automated blood cell separator device operating by centrifugal separation principle. Final rule.

PubMed

2007-11-30

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying from class III to class II the automated blood cell separator device operating by centrifugal separation principle and intended for the routine collection of blood and blood components. FDA is taking this action on its own initiative based on new information. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance document that will serve as the special controls for this device, as well as the special controls for the device with the same intended use but operating on a filtration separation principle.

Medical devices; hematology and pathology devices; classification of cord blood processing system and storage container. Final rule.

PubMed

2007-02-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying a cord blood processing system and storage container into class II (special controls). The special control that will apply to this device is the guidance document entitled "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Cord Blood Processing System and Storage Container." FDA is classifying this device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of this device. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of the guidance document that will serve as the special control for this device.

FDA working to ensure the safety of medical devices used in the pediatric population.

PubMed

Flack, Marilyn Neder; Gross, Thomas P; Reid, Joy Samuels; Mills, Thalia T; Francis, Jacqueline

2012-12-01

Special initiatives exist in FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to ensure the safety and effectiveness of medical products used in the vulnerable pediatric population. This article focuses on the special programs, projects, and special studies implemented by CDRH to ensure this safety and effectiveness in devices used in pediatric patients throughout the devices' total product life-cycles. Pediatricians play a major role in keeping medical devices safe for use in children by reporting device problems to FDA. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Contrasting clinical evidence for market authorisation of cardio-vascular devices in Europe and the USA: a systematic analysis of 10 devices based on Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments.

PubMed

Wild, Claudia; Erdös, Judit; Zechmeister, Ingrid

2014-11-04

European medical device regulation is under scrutiny and will be re-regulated with stricter rules concerning requirements for clinical evidence for high-risk medical devices. It is the aim of this study to analyse the differences between Europe and USA in dealing with risks and benefits of new cardio-vascular devices. Since no information is available on clinical data used by the Notified Body for CE-marking, data from Austrian pre-reimbursement assessments close to European market approval were used as proxy and compared with clinical data available at time of market approval by FDA in the USA. 10 cardio-vascular interventions with 27 newly CE approved medical devices were analysed. The time lag between market authorisation in Europe and in the USA is 3 to 7 years. Only 7 CE-marked devices also hold a FDA market approval, 7 further devices are in FDA approved ongoing efficacy trials. For 4 of the CE-marked devices the FDA market application or the approval-trial was either suspended due to efficacy or safety concerns or the approval was denied. Evidence available at time of CE-marking are most often case-series or small feasibility RCTs, while large RCTs and only in rare cases prospective cohort studies are the basis of FDA approvals. Additionally, the FDA often requires post-approval studies for high-risk devices. Market authorisation based on mature clinical data deriving from larger RCTs and longer follow-ups do not only change the perspective on the risk-benefit ratio, but also secures real patient benefit and safety and assures payers of investing only in truly innovative devices.

TU-AB-204-00: CDRH/FDA Regulatory Processes and Device Science Activities

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

NONE

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) andmore » the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA’s mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: Understand FDA’s pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices Understand FDA’s current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose.« less

21 CFR 830.130 - Suspension or revocation of the accreditation of an issuing agency.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES UNIQUE DEVICE IDENTIFICATION FDA Accreditation of an Issuing Agency § 830.130 Suspension or revocation of the accreditation of an issuing agency. FDA may suspend or revoke the accreditation of an issuing agency if FDA finds, after providing the issuing...

21 CFR 814.40 - Time frames for reviewing a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.40 Time frames for... the applicant does not submit a major amendment, FDA will review the PMA and, after receiving the report and recommendation of the appropriate FDA advisory committee, send the applicant an approval order...

21 CFR 814.40 - Time frames for reviewing a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.40 Time frames for... the applicant does not submit a major amendment, FDA will review the PMA and, after receiving the report and recommendation of the appropriate FDA advisory committee, send the applicant an approval order...

21 CFR 814.40 - Time frames for reviewing a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.40 Time frames for... the applicant does not submit a major amendment, FDA will review the PMA and, after receiving the report and recommendation of the appropriate FDA advisory committee, send the applicant an approval order...

76 FR 24494 - Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Processing/Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-05-02

...] Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: Processing/ Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care... Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling.'' The recommendations in this guidance... Staff: Processing/Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling...

Medical Device Regulation: A Comparison of the United States and the European Union.

PubMed

Maak, Travis G; Wylie, James D

2016-08-01

Medical device regulation is a controversial topic in both the United States and the European Union. Many physicians and innovators in the United States cite a restrictive US FDA regulatory process as the reason for earlier and more rapid clinical advances in Europe. The FDA approval process mandates that a device be proved efficacious compared with a control or be substantially equivalent to a predicate device, whereas the European Union approval process mandates that the device perform its intended function. Stringent, peer-reviewed safety data have not been reported. However, after recent high-profile device failures, political pressure in both the United States and the European Union has favored more restrictive approval processes. Substantial reforms of the European Union process within the next 5 to 10 years will result in a more stringent approach to device regulation, similar to that of the FDA. Changes in the FDA regulatory process have been suggested but are not imminent.

75 FR 17093 - Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices; Designation of Special Controls for Certain Class II...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-05

... [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0493] RIN 0910-ZA37 Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices; Designation of... proposing to amend certain neurological device and physical medicine device regulations to establish special..., FDA is proposing to amend the physical medicine devices regulation at Sec. 890.5850 (21 CFR 890.5850...

Food and Drug Administration workshop on indirect mechanisms of carcinogenesis.

PubMed

Poirier, L A

1996-01-01

A workshop sponsored by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was held on March 4-5, 1996, at the Lister Hill Auditorium of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Campus in Bethesda, Maryland. The workshop considered both the scientific aspects and the regulatory implications of indirect-acting carcinogens. A wide variety of agents and of prospective mechanisms was discussed. The organizing committee for the workshop consisted of Drs. James Farrelly and Joseph DeGeorge of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Ronald J. Lorentzen and Sidney Green of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Martin D. Green of the Center for Biologics, Evaluation and Research (CBER), C. Darnell Jackson and Lionel A. Poirier of the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR). Rosalie K. Elespuru of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and David G. Longfellow of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Following an introduction by Dr. Poirier, who provided a description of indirect carcinogens, the major talks were grouped into three formal sessions: indirect-acting compounds and agents of FDA interest, biological and biochemical endpoints commonly seen with indirect agents, and specific problems associated with the indirect-acting compounds. A panel discussion followed and the concluding remarks were made by Dr. Bernard A. Schwetz, Associate Commissioner for Science, FDA.

A review of the FDA draft guidance document for software validation: guidance for industry.

PubMed

Keatley, K L

1999-01-01

A Draft Guidance Document (Version 1.1) was issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to address the software validation requirement of the Quality System Regulation, 21 CFR Part 820, effective June 1, 1997. The guidance document outlines validation considerations that the FDA regards as applicable to both medical device software and software used to "design, develop or manufacture" medical devices. The Draft Guidance is available at the FDA web site http:@www.fda.gov/cdrh/comps/swareval++ +.html. Presented here is a review of the main features of the FDA document for Quality System Regulation (QSR), and some guidance for its implementation in industry.

76 FR 45825 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health 510(k) Clearance Process; Institute of Medicine Report...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-08-01

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0556...: ``Medical Devices and the Public's Health, The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years;'' Request for... Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting comments on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report entitled...

21 CFR 814.45 - Denial of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.45 Denial of approval of a PMA. (a) FDA may issue an order denying approval of a PMA if the applicant fails to follow the... information before the agency, FDA determines that any of the grounds for denying approval of a PMA specified...

21 CFR 814.45 - Denial of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.45 Denial of approval of a PMA. (a) FDA may issue an order denying approval of a PMA if the applicant fails to follow the... information before the agency, FDA determines that any of the grounds for denying approval of a PMA specified...

21 CFR 814.45 - Denial of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.45 Denial of approval of a PMA. (a) FDA may issue an order denying approval of a PMA if the applicant fails to follow the... information before the agency, FDA determines that any of the grounds for denying approval of a PMA specified...

76 FR 54777 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health 510(k) Clearance Process; Recommendations Proposed in...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-09-02

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0556... Institute of Medicine Report: ``Medical Devices and the Public's Health, The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at...; correction. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the...

Non-Ionizing Radiation Used in Microwave Ovens

MedlinePlus

... Human Services (HHS), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) sets ... public health. These standards can be viewed on FDA's Code of Federal Regulations on Microwave Ovens . FDA ...

77 FR 8117 - Medical Devices; Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of the Endovascular Suturing System

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-02-14

... Administration (FDA) is classifying the endovascular suturing system into class II (special controls). The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance..., or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section...

Post-market clinical research conducted by medical device manufacturers: a cross-sectional survey.

PubMed

Ross, Joseph S; Blount, Katrina L; Ritchie, Jessica D; Hodshon, Beth; Krumholz, Harlan M

2015-01-01

In the US, once a medical device is made available for use, several requirements have been established by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure ongoing post-market surveillance of device safety and effectiveness. Our objective was to determine how commonly medical device manufacturers initiate post-market clinical studies or augment FDA post-market surveillance requirements for higher-risk devices that are most often approved via the FDA's pre-market approval (PMA) pathway. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 47 manufacturers with operations in California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts who market devices approved via the PMA pathway. Among 22 respondents (response rate =47%), nearly all self-reported conducting post-market clinical research studies, commonly between 1 and 5; only 1 respondent reported never conducting post-market clinical research studies. While manufacturers most often engaged in these studies to satisfy FDA requirements, other reasons were reported, including performance monitoring and surveillance and market acceptance initiatives. Risks of conducting and not conducting post-market clinical research studies were described through open-ended response to questions. Medical device manufacturers commonly initiate post-market clinical studies at the request of the FDA. Clinical data from these studies should be integrated into national post-market surveillance initiatives.

TU-AB-204-04: Partnerships

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Ochs, R.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) andmore » the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA’s mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: Understand FDA’s pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices Understand FDA’s current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose.« less

FDA MAUDE data on complications with lasers, light sources, and energy-based devices.

PubMed

Tremaine, Anne Marie; Avram, Mathew M

2015-02-01

It is essential for physicians to be fully informed regarding adverse events and malfunctions associated with medical devices that occur in routine practice. There is limited information on this important issue in the medical literature, and it is mostly based on initial studies and case reports. More advanced knowledge regarding device adverse events is necessary to guide physicians towards providing safe treatments. The FDA requires that manufacturers and device users submit medical device reports (MDRs) for suspected injuries from device use or malfunction. The database of MDRs, entitled Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) enables the FDA to monitor device performance and identify potential safety issues. We employed the following search strategy to identify reported adverse events. We searched the MAUDE electronic database on the FDA website in December 2013: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/search.cfm We collected all reported cases between 1991 and December 2013. The search terms utilized included a comprehensive list of device manufacturers, specific product names, and the wavelengths/technology of the devices used in the field of dermatology. Our search yielded 1257 MDRs. Forty-five MDRs were excluded due to insufficient data. The data is broken down into the adverse events observed, such as, but not limited to: blistering, burns, scarring, dyschromia, fat loss, and nerve palsy. The MDRs describe the adverse event and attempt to determine if it was related to device malfunction versus operator error. Radiofrequency devices, diode lasers, and intense pulsed light devices were the most commonly reported devices related to injuries. 1257 MDRs, from a myriad of devices used in dermatology, have been reported to the FDA as of December 2013. Despite the underreporting of adverse events, the MAUDE database is an untapped resource of post-market surveillance of medical devices. The database can offer additional information, which combined with the initial device studies and published case reports from our colleagues, will help raise awareness and improve patient safety. © 2015 The Authors. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

US Food and Drug Administration Clearance of Moderate-Risk Otolaryngologic Devices via the 510(k) Process, 1997-2016.

PubMed

Rathi, Vinay K; Gadkaree, Shekhar K; Ross, Joseph S; Kozin, Elliott D; Sethi, Rosh K; Naunheim, Matthew R; Puram, Sidharth V; Gray, Stacey T

2017-10-01

Objective The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clears moderate-risk devices via the 510(k) process based on substantial equivalence to previously cleared devices; evidence of safety and effectiveness is not required. We characterized the premarket evidence supporting FDA clearance of otolaryngologic devices. Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Setting Publicly available FDA documents. Subjects and Methods Recently cleared (1997-2016) moderate-risk otolaryngologic devices were categorized by type (diagnostic/therapeutic), subspecialty, implantable designation (yes/no), and recall history (yes/no). Supporting evidence was categorized by type (clinical/nonclinical/none; nonclinical and clinical mutually inclusive) and public availability of nonclinical and clinical performance data (available/not provided/not applicable). Results Between 1997 and 2016, the FDA cleared 377 moderate-risk otolaryngologic devices. The majority were therapeutic (n = 240/377 [63.7%]) and otologic (n = 311/377 [82.5%]); roughly one-third (n = 121/377 [32.1%]) were implantable. Few (n = 10/377 [2.7%]) devices were subject to recall. FDA documents summarizing premarket evidence were accessible for two-thirds (n = 247/377 [65.5%]) of devices. Among these devices, one-quarter (n = 66/247 [26.7%]) were supported by clinical evidence. The majority (n = 177/247 [71.7%]) were supported by nonclinical evidence, although nearly one-quarter (n = 58/247 [23.5%]) were cleared without supporting evidence. Therapeutic devices were more often cleared without supporting evidence (therapeutic: n = 53/170 [31.2%]; diagnostic: n = 5/77 [6.5%]; P < .0001). Nonclinical and clinical performance data were rarely available (nonclinical: n = 49/247 [19.8%]; clinical: n = 32/247 [13.0%]) within public summaries. Conclusion The FDA cleared most moderate-risk otolaryngologic devices for marketing via the 510(k) process without clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness. Otolaryngologists should be aware of limitations in premarket evidence when considering the adoption of new devices into clinical practice.

A roundtable discussion: home healthcare-not a hospital in the home.

PubMed

Logan, Mary K; Parker, Chuck; Gardner-Bonneau, Daryle; Treu, Denny; Keller, James; Winstel, Lisa; Weick-Brady, Mary; Kramer, Nancy; Cyrus, Reginald; Thiel, Scott; Lewis, Vicki R; Rogers, Wendy

2013-01-01

Home healthcare is vital for a large percentage of the population. According to data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 7 million people in the United States receive home healthcare annually. The use of medical devices in the home and other nonclinical environments is increasing dramatically. By the year 2050, an estimated 27 million people will need continuing care in the home or in the community and not in a controlled clinical environment. 1 The FDA recently announced its Home Use Devices Initiative and issued the document, "Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff-Design Considerations for Devices Intended for Home Use" on Dec. 12, 2012. 2 The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) regulates medical devices, but that regulatory authority alone is not enough to ensure safe and effective use of devices in the home. To address these and other issues, AAMI and FDA will co-host a summit on healthcare technology in nonclinical settings Oct. 9-10, 2013.

78 FR 18233 - Medical Devices; Technical Amendment

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-03-26

... the right column: Section Remove Add 814.20 http://www.fda.gov/ http://www.fda.gov/ cdrh/devadvice.../ PremarketApproval PMA/default.htm. 822.7 http://www.fda.gov/ http://www.fda.gov/ cdrh/ombudsman/ AboutFDA/ dispute.html. CentersOffices/ OfficeofMedicalPr oductsandTobacco/ CDRH/ CDRHOmbudsman/ default.htm. 822.15...

Advancing regulatory science to bring novel medical devices for use in emergency care to market: the role of the Food and Drug Administration.

PubMed

Scully, Christopher G; Forrest, Shawn; Galeotti, Loriano; Schwartz, Suzanne B; Strauss, David G

2015-04-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) performs regulatory science to provide science-based medical product regulatory decisions. This article describes the types of scientific research the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health performs and highlights specific projects related to medical devices for emergency medicine. In addition, this article discusses how results from regulatory science are used by the FDA to support the regulatory process as well as how the results are communicated to the public. Regulatory science supports the FDA's mission to assure safe, effective, and high-quality medical products are available to patients. Published by Elsevier Inc.

78 FR 2998 - Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997: Modifications to the List of Recognized...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-01-15

... on FDA's Internet site at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Standards..., and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360d). Amended section 514 allows FDA to recognize... accessible at the Agency's Internet site. See section VI of this document for electronic access information...

21 CFR 814.46 - Withdrawal of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.46 Withdrawal of approval of a PMA. (a) FDA may issue an order withdrawing approval of a PMA if, from any information available to the agency, FDA determines that: (1) Any of the grounds under section 515(e)(1) (A)-(G) of the act...

21 CFR 814.46 - Withdrawal of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.46 Withdrawal of approval of a PMA. (a) FDA may issue an order withdrawing approval of a PMA if, from any information available to the agency, FDA determines that: (1) Any of the grounds under section 515(e)(1) (A)-(G) of the act...

21 CFR 814.46 - Withdrawal of approval of a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.46 Withdrawal of approval of a PMA. (a) FDA may issue an order withdrawing approval of a PMA if, from any information available to the agency, FDA determines that: (1) Any of the grounds under section 515(e)(1) (A)-(G) of the act...

75 FR 20913 - Center for Devices and Radiological Health; New Address Information

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-22

... information for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). All filings and other documents that... components of the agency's CDRH. The changes are the result of the relocation of these offices to FDA's White... with FDA Form 3500A. You may obtain the coding manual from CDRH's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Safety...

Network-Based Real-time Integrated Fire Detection and Alarm (FDA) System with Building Automation

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Anwar, F.; Boby, R. I.; Rashid, M. M.; Alam, M. M.; Shaikh, Z.

2017-11-01

Fire alarm systems have become increasingly an important lifesaving technology in many aspects, such as applications to detect, monitor and control any fire hazard. A large sum of money is being spent annually to install and maintain the fire alarm systems in buildings to protect property and lives from the unexpected spread of fire. Several methods are already developed and it is improving on a daily basis to reduce the cost as well as increase quality. An integrated Fire Detection and Alarm (FDA) systems with building automation was studied, to reduce cost and improve their reliability by preventing false alarm. This work proposes an improved framework for FDA system to ensure a robust intelligent network of FDA control panels in real-time. A shortest path algorithmic was chosen for series of buildings connected by fiber optic network. The framework shares information and communicates with each fire alarm panels connected in peer to peer configuration and declare the network state using network address declaration from any building connected in network. The fiber-optic connection was proposed to reduce signal noises, thus increasing large area coverage, real-time communication and long-term safety. Based on this proposed method an experimental setup was designed and a prototype system was developed to validate the performance in practice. Also, the distributed network system was proposed to connect with an optional remote monitoring terminal panel to validate proposed network performance and ensure fire survivability where the information is sequentially transmitted. The proposed FDA system is different from traditional fire alarm and detection system in terms of topology as it manages group of buildings in an optimal and efficient manner.Introduction

21 CFR 803.58 - Foreign manufacturers.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... under this part to FDA, CDRH, Medical Device Reporting, P.O. Box 3002, Rockville, MD 20847-3002, using... identify your annual report as such. You must submit your annual report to FDA, CDRH, Medical Device...

New orthopedic devices and the FDA.

PubMed

Sheth, Ujash; Nguyen, Nhu-An; Gaines, Sean; Bhandari, Mohit; Mehlman, Charles T; Klein, Guy

2009-01-01

Each year the field of orthopedics is introduced to an influx of new medical devices. Each of these medical devices has faced certain hurdles prior to being approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Among the regulatory pathways available, the 510(k) premarket notification is by far the one most commonly used. The 510(k) premarket notification allows the manufacturer to receive prompt approval of their device by demonstrating that it is "substantially equivalent" to an existing legally marketed device. In most instances, this proof of substantial equivalence allows manufacturers of medical devices to bypass the use of clinical trials, which are a hallmark of the approval process for new drugs. As a result, most medical devices are approved without demonstrating safety or effectiveness. This article reviews the regulatory processes used by the FDA to evaluate new orthopedic devices.

Zohydro approval by food and drug administration: controversial or frightening?

PubMed

Manchikanti, Laxmaiah; Atluri, Sairam; Candido, Kenneth D; Boswell, Mark V; Simopoulos, Thomas T; Grider, Jay S; Falco, Frank J E; Hirsch, Joshua A

2014-01-01

The actions and regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are crucial to the entire population of the U.S., specifically the public who take a multitude of drugs and providers who prescribe drugs and devices. Further, the FDA is relevant to investors, specifically in regards to biotech and pharmaceutical companies involved in developing new drugs. The FDA has been criticized for a lack of independence on the one hand and excessive regulatory and expanding authority without evidence and consistency of the actions on the other hand. The FDA approved a single-entity, long-acting, hydrocodone product (Zohydro, Zogenix, San Diego, CA) on October 25, 2013, against the recommendation of the FDA's own appointed scientific advisory panel, which voted 11 to 2 against the approval of Zohydro. Subsequent to the approval, multiple consumer safety organizations, health care agencies, addiction treatment providers, professional organizations, and other groups on the frontline of the opioid addiction epidemic have expressed concern. In addition, the US Congress and various state attorneys general raised serious concerns about the approval of Zohydro, which is highly addictive and may enhance the opioid addiction epidemic. Supporters of Zohydro contend that it is necessary and essential to manage chronic pain and improve functional status with no additional risk. Over the past 15 years, prescriptions for opioids have skyrocketed with the United States consuming more than 84% of the global oxycodone and more than 99% of the hydrocodone supply. The sharp increase in opioid prescribing has led to parallel increases in opioid addiction and overdose deaths, surpassing motor vehicle injuries in the U.S. Recent studies assessing the trends of medical use and misuse of opioid analgesics from 2000 to 2011 have concluded that the present trend of the continued increase in the medical use of opioid analgesics appears to contribute to increasing misuse, resulting in multiple health consequences, despite numerous regulations enforced by multiple organizations. The approval of Zohydro and its defense from the FDA were based on a misunderstanding of the prevalence of chronic severe disabling pain. Based on inaccurate data from the Institute of Medicine, in part caused by conflicts of interest, 100 million persons have been described to suffer from severe pain - the correct number is 22.6 million. This manuscript analyzes 3 important principles of drug approval and utilization based on safety, efficacy, and medical necessity. Based on the limited literature that the authors were able to review including that which was submitted to the FDA by the manufacturers, it appears the safety, efficacy, and medical necessity were not demonstrated. In fact, the study submitted to the FDA showed a 50% pain improvement in only 48% of the patients in the treatment group and 21% of the patients in the placebo group at 85 day follow-up. This is a statistically significant result but its clinical relevance is unknown. The FDA approval decision occurring against the backdrop of the advisory panel recommendation is concerning and may result in serious consequences in the future.

77 FR 43846 - Food and Drug Administration Pediatric Medical Devices Workshop; Notice of Workshop

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-07-26

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001... Products Development is announcing the following workshop: FDA Pediatric Medical Devices Workshop. This meeting is intended to focus on challenges in pediatric device development--namely, business planning and...

TU-AB-204-01: Device Approval Process

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Delfino, J.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) andmore » the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA’s mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: Understand FDA’s pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices Understand FDA’s current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose.« less

TU-AB-204-02: Device Adverse Events and Compliance

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Gonzales, S.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) andmore » the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA’s mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: Understand FDA’s pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices Understand FDA’s current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose.« less

26 CFR 48.4191-2 - Taxable medical device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

..., available at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfIVD/Search.cfm. (B) Devices that are... and listing database, available at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfrl/rl.cfm. (D...

Delegations of authority and organization; Center for Devices and Radiological Health--FDA. Final rule.

PubMed

1998-05-18

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the regulations for delegations of authority to reflect a new delegation that authorizes the Division Directors, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) to approve, disapprove, or withdraw approval of product development protocols and applications for premarket approval for medical devices.

High-risk medical devices, children and the FDA: regulatory challenges facing pediatric mechanical circulatory support devices.

PubMed

Almond, Christopher S D; Chen, Eric A; Berman, Michael R; Less, Joanne R; Baldwin, J Timothy; Linde-Feucht, Sarah R; Hoke, Tracey R; Pearson, Gail D; Jenkins, Kathy; Duncan, Brian W; Zuckerman, Bram D

2007-01-01

Pediatric mechanical circulatory support is a critical unmet need in the United States. Infant- and child-sized ventricular assist devices are currently being developed largely through federal contracts and grants through the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Human testing and marketing of high-risk devices for children raises epidemiologic and regulatory issues that will need to be addressed. Leaders from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), NHLBI, academic pediatric community, and industry convened in January 2006 for the first FDA Workshop on the Regulatory Process for Pediatric Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices. The purpose was to provide the pediatric community with an overview of the federal regulatory process for high-risk medical devices and to review the challenges specific to the development and regulation of pediatric mechanical circulatory support devices. Pediatric mechanical circulatory support present significant epidemiologic, logistic, and financial challenges to industry, federal regulators, and the pediatric community. Early interactions with the FDA, shared appreciation of challenges, and careful planning will be critical to avoid unnecessary delays in making potentially life-saving devices available for children. Collaborative efforts to address these challenges are warranted.

Regulatory perspectives and research activities at the FDA on the use of phantoms with in vivo diagnostic devices

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Agrawal, Anant; Gavrielides, Marios A.; Weininger, Sandy; Chakrabarti, Kish; Pfefer, Joshua

2008-02-01

For a number of years, phantoms have been used to optimize device parameters and validate performance in the primary medical imaging modalities (CT, MRI, PET/SPECT, ultrasound). Furthermore, the FDA under the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) requires image quality evaluation of mammography systems using FDA-approved phantoms. The oldest quantitative optical diagnostic technology, pulse oximetry, also benefits from the use of active phantoms known as patient simulators to validate certain performance characteristics under different clinically-relevant conditions. As such, guidance provided by the FDA to its staff and to industry on the contents of pre-market notification and approval submissions includes suggestions on how to incorporate the appropriate phantoms in establishing device effectiveness. Research at the FDA supports regulatory statements on the use of phantoms by investigating how phantoms can be designed, characterized, and utilized to determine critical device performance characteristics. These examples provide a model for how novel techniques in the rapidly growing field of optical diagnostics can use phantoms during pre- and post-market regulatory testing.

Characteristics of Clinical Studies Conducted Over the Total Product Life Cycle of High-Risk Therapeutic Medical Devices Receiving FDA Premarket Approval in 2010 and 2011.

PubMed

Rathi, Vinay K; Krumholz, Harlan M; Masoudi, Frederick A; Ross, Joseph S

2015-08-11

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves high-risk medical devices, those that support or sustain human life or present potential unreasonable risk to patients, via the Premarket Approval (PMA) pathway. The generation of clinical evidence to understand device safety and effectiveness is shifting from predominantly premarket to continual study throughout the total product life cycle. To characterize the clinical evidence generated for high-risk therapeutic devices over the total product life cycle. All clinical studies of high-risk therapeutic devices receiving initial market approval via the PMA pathway in 2010 and 2011 identified through ClinicalTrials.gov and publicly available FDA documents as of October 2014. Studies were characterized by type (pivotal, studies that served as the basis of FDA approval; FDA-required postapproval studies [PAS]; or manufacturer/investigator-initiated); premarket or postmarket; status (completed, ongoing, or terminated/unknown); and design features, including enrollment, comparator, and longest duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up. In 2010 and 2011, 28 high-risk therapeutic devices received initial marketing approval via the PMA pathway. We identified 286 clinical studies of these devices: 82 (28.7%) premarket and 204 (71.3%) postmarket, among which there were 52 (18.2%) nonpivotal premarket studies, 30 (10.5%) pivotal premarket studies, 33 (11.5%) FDA-required PAS, and 171 (59.8%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies. Six of 33 (18.2%) PAS and 20 of 171 (11.7%) manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies were reported as completed. No postmarket studies were identified for 5 (17.9%) devices; 3 or fewer were identified for 13 (46.4%) devices overall. Median enrollment was 65 patients (interquartile range [IQR], 25-111), 241 patients (IQR, 147-415), 222 patients (IQR, 119-640), and 250 patients (IQR, 60-800) for nonpivotal premarket, pivotal, FDA-required PAS, and manufacturer/investigator-initiated postmarket studies, respectively. Approximately half of all studies used no comparator (pivotal: 13/30 [43.3%]; completed postmarket: 16/26 [61.5%]; ongoing postmarket: 70/153 [45.8%]). Median duration of primary effectiveness end point follow-up was 3.0 months (IQR, 3.0-12.0), 9.0 months (IQR, 0.3-12.0), and 12.0 months (IQR, 7.0-24.0) for pivotal, completed postmarket, and ongoing postmarket studies, respectively. Among high-risk therapeutic devices approved via the FDA PMA pathway, total product life cycle evidence generation varied in both the number and quality of premarket and postmarket studies, with approximately 13% of initiated postmarket studies completed between 3 and 5 years after FDA approval.

Clinical Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Premarket Approval of High-Risk Otolaryngologic Devices, 2000-2014.

PubMed

Rathi, Vinay K; Wang, Bo; Ross, Joseph S; Downing, Nicholas S; Kesselheim, Aaron S; Gray, Stacey T

2017-02-01

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves high-risk medical devices based on premarket pivotal clinical studies demonstrating reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness and may require postapproval studies (PAS) to further inform benefit-risk assessment. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents to characterize industry-sponsored pivotal studies and PAS of high-risk devices used in the treatment of otolaryngologic diseases. Between 2000 and 2014, the FDA approved 23 high-risk otolaryngologic devices based on 28 pivotal studies. Median enrollment was 118 patients (interquartile range, 67-181), and median duration of longest primary effectiveness end point follow-up was 26 weeks (interquartile range, 16-96). Fewer than half were randomized (n = 13, 46%), blinded (n = 12, 43%), or controlled (n = 10, 36%). The FDA required 23 PASs for 16 devices (70%): almost two-thirds (n = 15, 65%) monitored long-term performance, and roughly one-third (n = 8, 35%) focused on subgroups. Otolaryngologists should be aware of limitations in the strength of premarket evidence when considering the use of newly approved devices.

TU-AB-204-03: Research Activities in Medical Physics

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Badano, A.

The responsibilities of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have increased since the inception of the Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Medical devices first came under comprehensive regulation with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In 1971 FDA also took on the responsibility for consumer protection against unnecessary exposure to radiation-emitting devices for home and occupational use. However it was not until 1976, under the Medical Device Regulation Act, that the FDA was responsible for the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. This session will be presented by the Division of Radiological Health (DRH) andmore » the Division of Imaging, Diagnostics, and Software Reliability (DIDSR) from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the FDA. The symposium will discuss on how we protect and promote public health with a focus on medical physics applications organized into four areas: pre-market device review, post-market surveillance, device compliance, current regulatory research efforts and partnerships with other organizations. The pre-market session will summarize the pathways FDA uses to regulate the investigational use and commercialization of diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy medical devices in the US, highlighting resources available to assist investigators and manufacturers. The post-market session will explain the post-market surveillance and compliance activities FDA performs to monitor the safety and effectiveness of devices on the market. The third session will describe research efforts that support the regulatory mission of the Agency. An overview of our regulatory research portfolio to advance our understanding of medical physics and imaging technologies and approaches to their evaluation will be discussed. Lastly, mechanisms that FDA uses to seek public input and promote collaborations with professional, government, and international organizations, such as AAPM, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), Image Gently, and the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) among others, to fulfill FDA’s mission will be discussed. Learning Objectives: Understand FDA’s pre-market and post-market review processes for medical devices Understand FDA’s current regulatory research activities in the areas of medical physics and imaging products Understand how being involved with AAPM and other organizations can also help to promote innovative, safe and effective medical devices J. Delfino, nothing to disclose.« less

Reflections on the US FDA's Warning on Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Testing.

PubMed

Yim, Seon-Hee; Chung, Yeun-Jun

2014-12-01

In November 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent a warning letter to 23andMe, Inc. and ordered the company to discontinue marketing of the 23andMe Personal Genome Service (PGS) until it receives FDA marketing authorization for the device. The FDA considers the PGS as an unclassified medical device, which requires premarket approval or de novo classification. Opponents of the FDA's action expressed their concerns, saying that the FDA is overcautious and paternalistic, which violates consumers' rights and might stifle the consumer genomics field itself, and insisted that the agency should not restrict direct-to-consumer (DTC) genomic testing without empirical evidence of harm. Proponents support the agency's action as protection of consumers from potentially invalid and almost useless information. This action was also significant, since it reflected the FDA's attitude towards medical application of next-generation sequencing techniques. In this review, we followed up on the FDA-23andMe incident and evaluated the problems and prospects for DTC genetic testing.

FDA Proposes New Safety Measures for Indoor Tanning Devices: The Facts

MedlinePlus

... Consumers Home For Consumers Consumer Updates FDA Proposes New Safety Measures for Indoor Tanning Devices: The Facts ... Website Policies U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 1-888- ...

Hematology and pathology devices; reclassification of the automated differential cell counter. Final rule.

PubMed

2002-01-14

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying the automated differential cell counter (ADCC) from class III (premarket approval) into class II (special controls). FDA is also identifying the guidance document entitled "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Premarket Notifications for Automated Differential Cell Counters for Immature or Abnormal Blood Cells; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA" as the special control that the agency believes will reasonably ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. This reclassification is being undertaken based on new information submitted in a reclassification petition from the International Society for Laboratory Hematology (ISLH), under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), as amended by the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 and the FDA Modernization Act of 1997.

76 FR 61103 - Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; De Novo Classification...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-10-03

... all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationand...),'' from CDRH you may either send an e-mail request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of... guidance describes how FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and Center for Biologics...

10 CFR 35.7 - FDA, other Federal, and State requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. 35.7 Section....7 FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. Nothing in this part relieves the licensee from complying with applicable FDA, other Federal, and State requirements governing radioactive drugs or devices. ...

10 CFR 35.7 - FDA, other Federal, and State requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. 35.7 Section....7 FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. Nothing in this part relieves the licensee from complying with applicable FDA, other Federal, and State requirements governing radioactive drugs or devices. ...

10 CFR 35.7 - FDA, other Federal, and State requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. 35.7 Section....7 FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. Nothing in this part relieves the licensee from complying with applicable FDA, other Federal, and State requirements governing radioactive drugs or devices. ...

10 CFR 35.7 - FDA, other Federal, and State requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. 35.7 Section....7 FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. Nothing in this part relieves the licensee from complying with applicable FDA, other Federal, and State requirements governing radioactive drugs or devices. ...

10 CFR 35.7 - FDA, other Federal, and State requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 10 Energy 1 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. 35.7 Section....7 FDA, other Federal, and State requirements. Nothing in this part relieves the licensee from complying with applicable FDA, other Federal, and State requirements governing radioactive drugs or devices. ...

Gaps, tensions, and conflicts in the FDA approval process: implications for clinical practice.

PubMed

Deyo, Richard A

2004-01-01

Despite many successes, drug approval at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is subject to gaps, internal tensions, and conflicts of interest. Recalls of drugs and devices and studies demonstrating advantages of older drugs over newer ones highlight the importance of these limitations. The FDA does not compare competing drugs and rarely requires tests of clinical efficacy for new devices. It does not review advertisements before use, assess cost-effectiveness, or regulate surgery (except for devices). Many believe postmarketing surveillance of drugs and devices is inadequate. A source of tension within the agency is pressure for speedy approvals. This may have resulted in "burn-out" among medical officers and has prompted criticism that safety is ignored. Others argue, however, that the agency is unnecessarily slow and bureaucratic. Recent reports identify conflicts of interest (stock ownership, consulting fees, research grants) among some members of the FDA's advisory committees. FDA review serves a critical function, but physicians should be aware that new drugs may not be as effective as old ones; that new drugs are likely to have undiscovered side effects at the time of marketing; that direct-to-consumer ads are sometimes misleading; that new devices generally have less rigorous evidence of efficacy than new drugs; and that value for money is not considered in approval.

21 CFR 807.22 - How and where to register establishments and list devices.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... use of the device. In lieu of form FDA-2892, tapes for computer input or hard copy computer output may by submitted if equivalent in all elements of information as specified in form FDA-2892. All formats...

Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process.

PubMed

Heneghan, Carl J; Goldacre, Ben; Onakpoya, Igho; Aronson, Jeffrey K; Jefferson, Tom; Pluddemann, Annette; Mahtani, Kamal R

2017-12-06

Transvaginal mesh devices are approved in the USA by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), through the 510(k) system. However, there is uncertainty about the benefit to harm balance of mesh approved for pelvic organ prolapse. We, therefore, assessed the evidence at the time of approval for transvaginal mesh products and the impact of safety studies the FDA mandated in 2012 because of emerging harms. We used FDA databases to determine the evidence for approval of transvaginal mesh. To create a 'family tree' of device equivalence, we used the 510(k) regulatory approval of the 1985 Mersilene Mesh (Ethicon) and the 1996 ProteGen Sling (Boston Scientific), searched for all subsequently related device approvals, and for the first published randomised trial evidence. We assessed compliance with all FDA 522 orders issued in 2012 requiring postmarketing surveillance studies. We found 61 devices whose approval ultimately relied on claimed equivalence to the Mersilene Mesh and the ProteGen Sling. We found no clinical trials evidence for these 61 devices at the time of approval. Publication of randomised clinical trials occurred at a median of 5 years after device approval (range 1-14 years). Analysis of 119 FDA 522 orders revealed that in 79 (66%) the manufacturer ceased market distribution of the device, and in 26 (22%) the manufacturer had changed the indication. Only seven studies (six cohorts and new randomised controlled trial) covering 11 orders were recruiting participants (none had reported outcomes). Transvaginal mesh products for pelvic organ prolapse have been approved on the basis of weak evidence over the last 20 years. Devices have inherited approval status from a few products. A publicly accessible registry of licensed invasive devices, with details of marketing status and linked evidence, should be created and maintained at the time of approval. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Dose Matters: FDA's Guidance on Children's X-rays

MedlinePlus

... Consumers Home For Consumers Consumer Updates Dose Matters: FDA's Guidance on Children's X-rays Share Tweet Linkedin ... extra care to “child size” the radiation dose. FDA’s Role The FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological ...

Medical devices; radiology devices; reclassification of full-field digital mammography system. Final rule.

PubMed

2010-11-05

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the reclassification of the full-field digital mammography (FFDM) system from class III (premarket approval) to class II (special controls). The device type is intended to produce planar digital x-ray images of the entire breast; this generic type of device may include digital mammography acquisition software, full-field digital image receptor, acquisition workstation, automatic exposure control, image processing and reconstruction programs, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories. The special control that will apply to the device is the guidance document entitled "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Full-Field Digital Mammography System." FDA is reclassifying the device into class II (special controls) because general controls along with special controls will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of the guidance document that will serve as the special control for this device.

Orthopedic devices; classification for the resorbable calcium salt bone void filler device. Final rule.

PubMed

2003-06-02

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the resorbable calcium salt bone void filler device intended to fill bony voids or gaps of the extremities, spine, and pelvis that are caused by trauma or surgery and are not intrinsic to the stability of the bony structure into class II (special controls). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of a class II special controls guidance entitled "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Resorbable Calcium Salt Bone Void Filler Device; Guidance for Industry and FDA." This action is being undertaken based on new information submitted in a classification proposal from Wright Medical Technology under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, and the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997.

Evaluation of an investigational wearable injector in healthy human volunteers.

PubMed

Torjman, Marc C; Machnicki, Robert; Lessin, Jennifer; Loeum, Channy; Steinberger, Douglas; Mycroft, Sarah; Joseph, Jeffrey I

2017-01-01

Introduction of a wearable device for subcutaneous delivery of larger volume bolus injections would encourage patient compliance and reduce the burden on healthcare services. With one such wearable device commercially available, this study examined the safety and functionality of an investigational device in volunteers. Four devices were applied to the subject's abdomen: 1) Investigational Device, 2) Investigational Device: subject movement, 3) Control Device: FDA-cleared syringe driver with FDA-cleared infusion set, 4) Control Device: FDA-cleared syringe driver attached to investigational device. Three milliliters of saline were infused through the four devices over 3 minutes. 84 devices were applied to 21 subjects. Three milliliters of saline were safely delivered subcutaneously from the investigational and control devices. Two control devices had occlusions and in each case the pump reached its high pressure limit of 12 psi. VAS pain measurements showed minimal pain for all subjects. Pain scores were significantly (p < 0.001) higher than baseline at the end of injection: mean pain level ranged from 2.0-22.0 mm. The investigational device performed as intended with minimal pain during needle insertion and infusion, and no leaking of fluid at the skin puncture site. Two occlusions occurred with the control devices.

Post-market clinical research conducted by medical device manufacturers: a cross-sectional survey

PubMed Central

Ross, Joseph S; Blount, Katrina L; Ritchie, Jessica D; Hodshon, Beth; Krumholz, Harlan M

2015-01-01

Background In the US, once a medical device is made available for use, several requirements have been established by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ensure ongoing post-market surveillance of device safety and effectiveness. Our objective was to determine how commonly medical device manufacturers initiate post-market clinical studies or augment FDA post-market surveillance requirements for higher-risk devices that are most often approved via the FDA’s pre-market approval (PMA) pathway. Methods and results We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 47 manufacturers with operations in California, Minnesota, and Massachusetts who market devices approved via the PMA pathway. Among 22 respondents (response rate =47%), nearly all self-reported conducting post-market clinical research studies, commonly between 1 and 5; only 1 respondent reported never conducting post-market clinical research studies. While manufacturers most often engaged in these studies to satisfy FDA requirements, other reasons were reported, including performance monitoring and surveillance and market acceptance initiatives. Risks of conducting and not conducting post-market clinical research studies were described through open-ended response to questions. Conclusion Medical device manufacturers commonly initiate post-market clinical studies at the request of the FDA. Clinical data from these studies should be integrated into national post-market surveillance initiatives. PMID:26060416

Regulation Catches Up to Reality.

PubMed

Edelman, Steven V

2017-01-01

The FDA recently conducted an Advisory Panel meeting to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and benefits of granting a nonadjunctive label claim for the DEXCOM G5 Mobile continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. If approved, this claim will allow users to make day-to-day treatment decisions, including insulin dosing directly from the glucose values and rate of changes arrows generated by the CGM device, without the requirement of a confirmatory measurement with a self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) meter. Sporadic SMBG testing gives limited data, while CGM gives a value every 5 minutes and has alerts, alarms, trending information and allows caregivers to follow the user in real time 24/7. This indication will lead to more wide spread use of CGM and improve overall care with protection of hypoglycemia.

PR Notice 94-4 MOU on Regulation of Liquid Chemical Germicides Intended for Use on Medical Devices

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This MOU between EPA and FDA establishes roles for regulation of liquid chemical germicides intended for use on medical devices. An amendment revises the disclaimer statement for labels of all liquid chemical germicides, other than FDA-approved sterilants.

76 FR 80948 - Draft Guidance for Industry, Clinical Investigators, Institutional Review Boards, and Food and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-12-27

...The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending the comment period for the notice that appeared in the Federal Register of Thursday, November, 10, 2011 (76 FR 70151). In the notice, FDA requested comments on the draft guidance that has been developed to promote the initiation of clinical investigations to evaluate the medical devices under FDA's Investigational Device Exemptions (IDE) regulations. The Agency is taking this action to allow interested persons additional time to submit comments.

Hysteroscopic Sterilization With Essure: Summary of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Actions and Policy Implications for Postmarketing Surveillance.

PubMed

Walter, Jessica R; Ghobadi, Comeron W; Hayman, Emily; Xu, Shuai

2017-01-01

In September 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Advisory Board Committee to address the sudden increase of patient-reported adverse events surrounding Essure, a Class III device offering a less invasive method for permanent female sterilization. After a review of the premarketing and postmarketing data and existing scientific literature, the FDA concluded there was insufficient evidence to remove the device from the market. However, the FDA did release a new guidance document requiring a black box warning for the device and ordered a new postmarketing study comparing Essure's safety and efficacy with laparoscopic tubal sterilization. The device was first approved in 2002 based on nonrandomized, single-arm prospective clinical studies. Since its approval, the device has grown in popularity, particularly in the United States. The driving forces for the sudden increase in adverse event reporting starting in 2013 related to the device remain unclear. Until completion of the new postmarketing study, there will continue to be significant uncertainty of the technology's risk-benefit profile. The controversy with Essure underscores the need for obstetricians and gynecologists to be actively involved in the lifecycle of medical devices. This includes actively reporting adverse events associated with devices to the FDA, supporting the implementation of unique device identifiers enriched with clinical records and paired with insurance claims, and stewarding robust device-specific registries.

Annual update: drugs, diagnostics and devices.

PubMed

Berardinelli, Candace; Kupecz, Deborah

2003-03-01

As NPs continue to play an important role in health care as administers of prescriptions, the value of reviewing the latest Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for new drugs and devices is immeasurable. In 2002, the FDA approved several new drugs and devices, as well as monitored previously approved drugs for adverse reactions and untoward events. This article provides a brief review of relevant primary care topics.

Safety and Procedural Success of Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion With the Lariat Device: A Systematic Review of Published Reports and Analytic Review of the FDA MAUDE Database.

PubMed

Chatterjee, Saurav; Herrmann, Howard C; Wilensky, Robert L; Hirshfeld, John; McCormick, Daniel; Frankel, David S; Yeh, Robert W; Armstrong, Ehrin J; Kumbhani, Dharam J; Giri, Jay

2015-07-01

The Lariat device has received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 510(k) clearance for soft-tissue approximation and is being widely used off-label for left atrial appendage (LAA) exclusion. A comprehensive analysis of safety and effectiveness has not been reported. To perform a systematic review of published literature to assess safety and procedural success, defined as successful closure of the LAA during the index procedure, of the Lariat device. We performed a formal analytic review of the FDA MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database to compile adverse event reports from real-world practice with the Lariat. For the systematic review, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2007 through August 2014 to identify all studies reporting use of the Lariat device in 3 or more patients. The FDA MAUDE database was queried for adverse events reports related to Lariat use. Data were abstracted in duplicate by 2 physician reviewers. Events from published literature were pooled using a generic inverse variance weighting with a random effects model. Cumulative and individual adverse events were also reported using the FDA MAUDE data set. Procedural adverse events and procedural success. In the systematic review, 5 reports of Lariat device use in 309 participants were identified. Specific complications weighted for inverse of variance of individual studies were urgent need for cardiac surgery (2.3%; 7 of 309 procedures) and death (0.3%; 1 of 309 procedures). Procedural success was 90.3% (279 of 309 procedures). In the FDA MAUDE database, there were 35 unique reports of adverse events with use of the Lariat device. Among these, we identified 5 adverse event reports that noted pericardial effusion and death and an additional 23 reported urgent cardiac surgery without mention of death. This review of published reports and case reports identified risks of adverse events with off-label use of the Lariat device for LAA exclusion. Formal, controlled investigations into the safety and efficacy of the device for this indication are warranted.

The Center for Devices and Radiological health: an update.

PubMed

Donawa, M

2001-12-01

At a recent medical device conference, Dr. David Feigal, the Director of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) stated that one-third of the CDRH staff will retire in five years. This is only one of many challenges that the Center faces.This article discusses key factors shaping current FDA device policies and programmes, the CDRH strategic plan, the continuing importance of the standards programme, and CDRH harmonisation activities.

75 FR 15439 - Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Global Medical Device Conference

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-03-29

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001] Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Global Medical Device Conference AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public conference. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA...

78 FR 15957 - Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Global Medical Device Conference

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-03-13

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001] Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Global Medical Device Conference AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public conference. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA...

77 FR 10537 - Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Global Medical Device Conference

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-02-22

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0001] Food and Drug Administration/Xavier University Global Medical Device Conference AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public conference. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA...

6 Tip-offs to Rip-offs: Don't Fall for Health Fraud Scams

MedlinePlus

... are not the only health scams on the market. FDA found a fraudulent and expensive light therapy device with cure-all claims to treat fungal meningitis, Alzheimer’s, skin cancer, concussions and many other unrelated diseases. Generally, making health claims about a medical device without FDA ...

76 FR 82301 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-12-30

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0619... Request; Medical Devices: Humanitarian Use Devices AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of...

[Comparative study of device labeling regulation in U.S.A. and China].

PubMed

Li, Fei; Wei, Jing; Ma, Yanbin; Li, Zhu

2010-09-01

To provide references for the evolvement of medical devices labeling and manual administration in China, By content analysis, 10 juristic documents relevant to device labeling and manual were collected from FDA website, compared to which, the federal regulation was mainly analyzed. There are five main differences of device labeling regulation between U.S.A. and China: juristic system, administrative scope, administrative target, characteristics and practice, A set of comprehensive juristic system for device labeling has been established by FDA. from which China should draw experience, to administrate the prescription devices and the over-the-counter devices in classification, and set up device labeling guidance, thus guarantee the safety and efficacy of device.

78 FR 50422 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-08-19

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket Nos. FDA-2013-M-0462... Wolanski, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave..... ABI 7500 Fast DX Real-Time PCR Instrument. P060028, FDA-2013-M-0738..... Mentor Worldwide LLC...

75 FR 35045 - Authorization of Emergency Use of Certain In Vitro Diagnostic Devices; Availability

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-06-21

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0277] Authorization of Emergency Use of Certain In Vitro Diagnostic Devices; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance...

Performing clinical studies involving hernia mesh devices: what every investigator should know about the FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) process.

PubMed

Ashar, B S; Dang, J M; Krause, D; Luke, M C

2011-12-01

The FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is responsible for providing reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of all medical devices marketed within the US. To date, CDRH has cleared numerous hernia mesh devices for general use, but has not cleared/approved any mesh devices intended for certain specific uses, such as for infected wounds, hernia prevention, biofilm reduction, or prevention of adhesions. CDRH is requesting that manufacturers seeking specific hernia mesh device labeling claims consult with the Agency to determine the level of evidence necessary for justifying such claims.

A Guide to the FDA.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Miller, Annetta K.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) collects information in seven areas: foods, cosmetics, human drugs, animal drugs and feeds, medical devices, biologics, and electronic radiological products. By using procedures outlined in the Freedom of Information Act, the public may get specific information from such FDA files as inspection…

21 CFR 99.301 - Agency action on a submission.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON UNAPPROVED/NEW USES FOR MARKETED DRUGS, BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on... days after receiving a submission under this part, FDA may: (1) Determine that the manufacturer does... disseminate additional information, including information that the manufacturer has submitted to FDA or, where...

21 CFR 99.301 - Agency action on a submission.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON UNAPPROVED/NEW USES FOR MARKETED DRUGS, BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on... days after receiving a submission under this part, FDA may: (1) Determine that the manufacturer does... disseminate additional information, including information that the manufacturer has submitted to FDA or, where...

21 CFR 99.301 - Agency action on a submission.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON UNAPPROVED/NEW USES FOR MARKETED DRUGS, BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on... days after receiving a submission under this part, FDA may: (1) Determine that the manufacturer does... disseminate additional information, including information that the manufacturer has submitted to FDA or, where...

21 CFR 99.301 - Agency action on a submission.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON UNAPPROVED/NEW USES FOR MARKETED DRUGS, BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on... days after receiving a submission under this part, FDA may: (1) Determine that the manufacturer does... disseminate additional information, including information that the manufacturer has submitted to FDA or, where...

Overcoming obstacles to repurposing for neurodegenerative disease

PubMed Central

Shineman, Diana W; Alam, John; Anderson, Margaret; Black, Sandra E; Carman, Aaron J; Cummings, Jeffrey L; Dacks, Penny A; Dudley, Joel T; Frail, Donald E; Green, Allan; Lane, Rachel F; Lappin, Debra; Simuni, Tanya; Stefanacci, Richard G; Sherer, Todd; Fillit, Howard M

2014-01-01

Repurposing Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs for a new indication may offer an accelerated pathway for new treatments to patients but is also fraught with significant commercial, regulatory, and reimbursement challenges. The Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation (ADDF) and the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research (MJFF) convened an advisory panel in October 2013 to understand stakeholder perspectives related to repurposing FDA-approved drugs for neurodegenerative diseases. Here, we present opportunities on how philanthropy, industry, and government can begin to address these challenges, promote policy changes, and develop targeted funding strategies to accelerate the potential of FDA-approved repurposed drugs. PMID:25356422

Problems caused by regulatory delays and lack of regulation

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Reamer, Lynne A.

1994-12-01

An FDA perspective on some of the problems encountered during the device review process is described. Emphasis is placed on the need for communication and teamwork among all parties to make the system work. Manufacturers are encouraged to `Do it right the first time.' Pertinent questions are asked of the manufacturers and proposed solutions are presented. Day to day reality at FDA is described and document workload is revealed. Lack of regulation, or more appropriately, when less regulation is appropriate is discussed. FDA has distributed to manufacturers a new draft guidance document to help in the decisionmaking process and when to submit a 510(k) when modifications are made to a device. This and other mechanisms are in place at the FDA to streamline the review process. Manufacturers are cautioned about their decisions and to seek advice from qualified persons. FDA emphasizes that help is available and that when in doubt, call.

Effect of Warning Placement on the Information Processing of College Students Reading an OTC Drug Facts Panel

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bhansali, Archita H.; Sangani, Darshan S.; Mhatre, Shivani K.; Sansgiry, Sujit S.

2018-01-01

Objective: To compare three over-the-counter (OTC) Drug Facts panel versions for information processing optimization among college students.Participants: University of Houston students (N = 210) participated in a cross-sectional survey from January to May 2010.Methods: A current FDA label was compared to two experimental labels developed using the…

77 FR 25353 - Disqualification of a Clinical Investigator

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-04-30

... marketing permit for other kinds of products regulated by FDA. This final rule is based in part upon... research or marketing permit for products regulated by FDA. The other amended provisions in this final rule... for a research or marketing permit for products regulated by FDA, including drugs, biologics, devices...

76 FR 26305 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Certification To...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-05-06

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0275... Accompany Drug, Biological Product, and Device Applications or Submissions (Form FDA 3674) AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing...

77 FR 33469 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Device...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-06-06

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0536... Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3601 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed...

77 FR 23267 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance for...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-04-18

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0324..., FDA Staff, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2012 Medical Device User Fee Small Business... Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of...

Enrollment and Monitoring of Women in Post-Approval Studies for Medical Devices Mandated by the Food and Drug Administration

PubMed Central

Herz, Naomi; Loyo-Berrios, Nilsa; Tarver, Michelle

2014-01-01

Abstract Background: Disease presentation, prevalence, and treatment effects vary by sex, thus it is important to ensure adequate participation of both sexes in medical device post-approval studies (PAS). Methods: The goals of this study were to determine the participation rate of women in PAS mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and if participation varied by clinical area. The study also evaluated the frequency in which enrollment by sex is reported by applicant reports and FDA reviews, as well as the frequency in which final study reports analyze whether outcomes differ by sex. Results: Of 89 studies with enrollment completed, data on sex of participants were available in 93% of submitted reports, while data on enrollment by sex was evaluated and noted in 43% of FDA review memos. Study participation varied by clinical area, with female participation ranging from 32% in cardiovascular PAS to 90% in PAS for reconstructive devices. Of 53 completed studies, data on enrollment by sex was provided in 49 of the final reports. Of these 14% included a multivariate analysis that included sex as a covariate and 4% included a subgroup analysis for female participants. Conclusions: Data on sex was not routinely assessed in FDA reviews. Based on these findings, FDA implemented new procedures to ensure participation by sex is evaluated in PAS reviews. FDA will continue working with applicants to develop PAS that enroll and retain proportions of women consistent with the sex-specific prevalence for the disease or condition the device is used to treat. PMID:24405314

77 FR 37570 - Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for a Pacemaker Programmer

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-06-22

... fallen into disuse and FDA has concluded that there is little or no interest in marketing these devices... little or no interest in marketing the affected devices and that the final rule would not have a significant economic impact. VI. Federalism FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles...

The evolution of FDA policy on silicone breast implants: a case study of politics, bureaucracy, and business in the process of decision-making.

PubMed

Palley, H A

1995-01-01

The central issue facing federal regulation of breast implants is that while such devices are not functionally necessary or needed for survival, the side effects may be harmful and have not been proven unharmful. The Medical Device Amendments of 1976 appear to require such evidence prior to the FDA permitting the unrestricted marketing of these devices. However, only recently have such requirements been imposed by the FDA. The author examines the FDA's decision-making process, particularly as applied to silicone breast implants, and the factors that appears to have affected such decisions. In pursuing this study, the activities of a number of interest-group actors, as well as congressional responses and the role of federal bureaucratic actors, were examined. In 1992, the FDA established a regulatory protocol that effectively withdrew most silicone breast implants from the market for the purpose of breast augmentation and allows for the monitoring of the impact of new implants on women's health. This increase concern for determining the safety of breast implants is due to a number of factors, which are examined in this article.

Participatory surveillance of diabetes device safety: a social media-based complement to traditional FDA reporting.

PubMed

Mandl, Kenneth D; McNabb, Marion; Marks, Norman; Weitzman, Elissa R; Kelemen, Skyler; Eggleston, Emma M; Quinn, Maryanne

2014-01-01

Malfunctions or poor usability of devices measuring glucose or delivering insulin are reportable to the FDA. Manufacturers submit 99.9% of these reports. We test online social networks as a complementary source to traditional FDA reporting of device-related adverse events. Participatory surveillance of members of a non-profit online social network, TuDiabetes.org, from October 2011 to September 2012. Subjects were volunteers from a group within TuDiabetes, actively engaged online in participatory surveillance. They used the free TuAnalyze app, a privacy-preserving method to report detailed clinical information, available through the network. Network members were polled about finger-stick blood glucose monitors, continuous glucose monitors, and insulin delivery devices, including insulin pumps and insulin pens. Of 549 participants, 75 reported device-related adverse events, nearly half (48.0%) requiring intervention from another person to manage the event. Only three (4.0%) of these were reported by participants to the FDA. All TuAnalyze reports contained outcome information compared with 22% of reports to the FDA. Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were experienced by 48.0% and 49.3% of participants, respectively. Members of an online community readily engaged in participatory surveillance. While polling distributed online populations does not yield generalizable, denominator-based rates, this approach can characterize risk within online communities using a bidirectional communication channel that enables reach-back and intervention. Engagement of distributed communities in social networks is a viable complementary approach to traditional public health surveillance for adverse events related to medical devices. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Advertising and promotion of medical devices.

PubMed

Portnoy, Stuart

2006-01-01

Dr. Portnoy, a former senior clinical reviewer and manager for the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, provides guidance for determining acceptable practices for the claims, content, and appearance of advertising and promotional materials for medical devices. In the course of doing so, he discusses important regulatory and legal precedents, and provides examples of successful and problematic advertising and promotion strategies including those that resulted in FDA Warning Letters, enforcement activities, and in some cases, monetary and criminal penalties.

The legal and scientific basis for FDA's assertion of jurisdiction over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco.

PubMed

Kessler, D A; Barnett, P S; Witt, A; Zeller, M R; Mande, J R; Schultz, W B

1997-02-05

On August 28, 1996, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asserted jurisdiction over cigarettes and smokeless tobacco under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under this Act, a product is a "drug" or "device" subject to FDA jurisdiction if it is "intended to affect the structure or any function of the body." The FDA determined that nicotine in cigarettes and smokeless tobacco does "affect the structure or any function of the body" because nicotine causes addiction and other pharmacological effects. The FDA then determined that these pharmacological effects are "intended" because (1) a scientific consensus has emerged that nicotine is addictive; (2) recent studies have shown that most consumers use cigarettes and smokeless tobacco for pharmacological purposes, including satisfying their addiction to nicotine; and (3) newly disclosed evidence from the tobacco manufacturers has revealed that the manufacturers know that nicotine causes pharmacological effects, including addiction, and design their products to provide pharmacologically active doses of nicotine. The FDA thus concluded that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are subject to FDA jurisdiction because they contain a "drug," nicotine, and a "device" for delivering this drug to the body.

21 CFR 516.111 - Scope of this subpart.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

...) Investigational exemptions for indexing purposes; (b) Submissions to FDA of requests for determination of eligibility of a new animal drug for indexing; (c) Establishment and operation of expert panels; (d...

21 CFR 516.111 - Scope of this subpart.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

...) Investigational exemptions for indexing purposes; (b) Submissions to FDA of requests for determination of eligibility of a new animal drug for indexing; (c) Establishment and operation of expert panels; (d...

21 CFR 516.111 - Scope of this subpart.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

...) Investigational exemptions for indexing purposes; (b) Submissions to FDA of requests for determination of eligibility of a new animal drug for indexing; (c) Establishment and operation of expert panels; (d...

Constructing the informatics and information technology foundations of a medical device evaluation system: a report from the FDA unique device identifier demonstration.

PubMed

Drozda, Joseph P; Roach, James; Forsyth, Thomas; Helmering, Paul; Dummitt, Benjamin; Tcheng, James E

2018-02-01

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recognized the need to improve the tracking of medical device safety and performance, with implementation of Unique Device Identifiers (UDIs) in electronic health information as a key strategy. The FDA funded a demonstration by Mercy Health wherein prototype UDIs were incorporated into its electronic information systems. This report describes the demonstration's informatics architecture. Prototype UDIs for coronary stents were created and implemented across a series of information systems, resulting in UDI-associated data flow from manufacture through point of use to long-term follow-up, with barcode scanning linking clinical data with UDI-associated device attributes. A reference database containing device attributes and the UDI Research and Surveillance Database (UDIR) containing the linked clinical and device information were created, enabling longitudinal assessment of device performance. The demonstration included many stakeholders: multiple Mercy departments, manufacturers, health system partners, the FDA, professional societies, the National Cardiovascular Data Registry, and information system vendors. The resulting system of systems is described in detail, including entities, functions, linkage between the UDIR and proprietary systems using UDIs as the index key, data flow, roles and responsibilities of actors, and the UDIR data model. The demonstration provided proof of concept that UDIs can be incorporated into provider and enterprise electronic information systems and used as the index key to combine device and clinical data in a database useful for device evaluation. Keys to success and challenges to achieving this goal were identified. Fundamental informatics principles were central to accomplishing the system of systems model. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

The "art" of medicine and the "smokescreen" of the randomized trial off-label use of vascular devices.

PubMed

Ansel, Gary M; Jaff, Michael R

2008-12-01

Once a device is approved for sale in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), it can legally be used by doctors to treat any condition a physician determines is medically appropriate. Based on postmarket published data and physician procedural experience, this may even become the standard of care when an alternative device either does not exist or is inferior in performance, even before FDA approval. This right of physicians to practice medicine without FDA approval is Federal law. The off-label use of medical devices for the treatment of peripheral vascular disease has recently become the latest target by groups with interests that have little to do with patient care. This interference has begun to negatively impact the latitude necessary for physicians to best treat their patients. Copyright 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Drug Development and US Regulatory Review: Perspectives From Industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Patient.

PubMed

Basch, Ethan; Geoghegan, Cindy; Coons, Stephen Joel; Gnanasakthy, Ari; Slagle, Ashley F; Papadopoulos, Elektra J; Kluetz, Paul G

2015-06-01

Data reported directly by patients about how they feel and function are rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States, in contrast to Europe and to nononcology labeling in the United States, where this practice is more common. Multiple barriers exist, including challenges unique to oncology trials, and industry's concerns regarding cost, logistical complexities, and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) rigorous application of its 2009 guidance on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. A panel consisting of representatives of industry, FDA, the PRO Consortium, clinicians, and patients was assembled at a 2014 workshop cosponsored by FDA to identify practical recommendations for overcoming these barriers. Key recommendations included increasing proactive encouragement by FDA to clinical trial sponsors for including PROs in drug development programs; provision of comprehensive PRO plans by sponsors to FDA early in drug development; promotion of an oncology-specific PRO research agenda; development of an approach to existing ("legacy") PRO measures, when appropriate (focused initially on symptoms and functional status); and increased FDA and industry training in PRO methodology. FDA has begun implementing several of these recommendations.

The new collaborative path in medical device development: the medical device innovation consortium.

PubMed

Kampfrath, Thomas; Cotten, Steven W

2013-10-01

The United States medical device market is the world's largest with over $100 billion in sales in 2011. Despite robust industry growth, the efficiency of the FDA approval process for moderate-risk (Class II) and high-risk devices (Class III) requiring 510(k) submission or pre-market approval (PMA) has been criticized. Recently, the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) announced the creation of a Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC), a public-private partnership (PPP) to share knowledge in regulatory science. Overarching goals include creating a forum for the exchange of ideas among the FDA, industry, and non-profit entities; providing monetary investments for project proposals prioritized by key working groups; and developing tools that support cost effective innovation, data-driven methodology, and implementation strategies. Clinical chemists and clinical laboratory scientists have several unique opportunities to contribute to the MDIC. These laboratory professionals have invaluable experience with the real-life performance of a variety of medical devices and their expertise can recognize unmet needs and contribute towards the acceleration of device development. Copyright © 2013 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

78 FR 46954 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-08-02

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0536...; Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3601 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information...

21 CFR 814.42 - Filing a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.42 Filing a PMA. (a) The filing of an application means that FDA has made a threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. Within 45 days after a PMA is received by FDA, the agency will notify the...

21 CFR 814.42 - Filing a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.42 Filing a PMA. (a) The filing of an application means that FDA has made a threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. Within 45 days after a PMA is received by FDA, the agency will notify the...

78 FR 8543 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-02-06

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0536... Request; Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet, Form FDA 3601 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection...

21 CFR 99.303 - Extension of time for completing planned studies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.303 Extension of time for completing... conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental application for a new use, FDA may, with or... writing that FDA extend the time period for conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental...

78 FR 65332 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-10-31

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0530... Request; Guidance on Medical Devices: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings With FDA Staff AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is...

21 CFR 99.303 - Extension of time for completing planned studies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.303 Extension of time for completing... conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental application for a new use, FDA may, with or... writing that FDA extend the time period for conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental...

21 CFR 99.303 - Extension of time for completing planned studies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.303 Extension of time for completing... conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental application for a new use, FDA may, with or... writing that FDA extend the time period for conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental...

78 FR 6822 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-01-31

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0324... Request; Guidance for Industry, FDA Staff, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2012 Medical Device User...: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of...

77 FR 41413 - Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Medical Devices: The Pre...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-07-13

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0530... Program and Meetings With FDA Staff; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft...

78 FR 950 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-01-07

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0530... Request; Guidance on Medical Devices: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings With FDA Staff; Withdrawal... a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notice that published in the Federal Register of December 11...

21 CFR 814.42 - Filing a PMA.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES FDA Action on a PMA § 814.42 Filing a PMA. (a) The filing of an application means that FDA has made a threshold determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. Within 45 days after a PMA is received by FDA, the agency will notify the...

75 FR 2874 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-01-19

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0486... Request; Guidance for Industry, FDA, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2010 Medical Device User Fee.... SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information...

21 CFR 99.303 - Extension of time for completing planned studies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.303 Extension of time for completing... conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental application for a new use, FDA may, with or... writing that FDA extend the time period for conducting studies needed for the submission of a supplemental...

75 FR 24707 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-05-05

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0483...; Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet--Form FDA 3601 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information...

78 FR 23569 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-19

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0324...; Guidance for Industry, FDA Staff, and Foreign Governments: Fiscal Year 2012 Medical Device User Fee Small...: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled...

75 FR 2866 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-01-19

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0483... Request; Medical Device User Fee Cover Sheet--Form FDA 3601 AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection...

76 FR 41804 - Town Hall Discussion With the Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-15

... dialogue about issues of importance to FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and to... call 650- 589-3400 and request the group rate for the ``FDA/CDRH Town Hall Meeting'' block of rooms... between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In 2010, CDRH...

Medical devices; exemption from premarket notification; Class II devices; optical impression systems for computer assisted design and manufacturing. Final rule.

PubMed

2003-04-22

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is publishing an order granting a petition requesting exemption from the premarket notification requirements for data acquisition units for ceramic dental restoration systems. This rule exempts from premarket notification data acquisition units for ceramic dental restoration systems and establishes a guidance document as a special control for this device. FDA is publishing this order in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA).

Combination products regulation at the FDA.

PubMed

Lauritsen, K J; Nguyen, T

2009-05-01

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of drugs, biological products, and medical devices. As single-entity products, drugs are generally regulated by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), devices by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and biologics by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). In recent years, technological advances have led to a blurring of the historical lines of separation between the centers.

FDA marketing claims, and the practitioner.

PubMed

Runner, Susan

2006-03-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the federal agency that is tasked with regulating market entry for medical devices. The laws that govern this process are codified in the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the regulations are based on this law. The medical device amendments to the Act were instituted in 1976, instituting the methods for classification of medical devices and the format for the premarket review of devices. Information for practitioners on how medical devices come to market, what data are required, how specific claims are cleared, and how the practitioner can give input to the system are critical for the further development of safe and effective medical devices.

Hernia Surgical Mesh Implants

MedlinePlus

... Surgical Clinics of North America; 83(5):1045-51, v-vi. 2 . http://www.facs.org/public_ ... FDA Contact FDA Browse by Product Area Product Areas back Food Drugs Medical Devices Radiation-Emitting Products ...

76 FR 76166 - Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; the Content of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-12-06

...The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance document entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: The Content of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications for Artificial Pancreas Device Systems.'' This draft guidance document provides industry and the Agency staff with guidelines for developing premarket submissions for artificial pancreas device systems, in particular, the Control-to-Range (CTR) and Control-to-Target (CTT) device systems. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

Software-Related Recalls of Health Information Technology and Other Medical Devices: Implications for FDA Regulation of Digital Health.

PubMed

Ronquillo, Jay G; Zuckerman, Diana M

2017-09-01

Policy Points: Medical software has become an increasingly critical component of health care, yet the regulation of these devices is inconsistent and controversial. No studies of medical devices and software assess the impact on patient safety of the FDA's current regulatory safeguards and new legislative changes to those standards. Our analysis quantifies the impact of software problems in regulated medical devices and indicates that current regulations are necessary but not sufficient for ensuring patient safety by identifying and eliminating dangerous defects in software currently on the market. New legislative changes will further deregulate health IT, reducing safeguards that facilitate the reporting and timely recall of flawed medical software that could harm patients. Medical software has become an increasingly critical component of health care, yet the regulatory landscape for digital health is inconsistent and controversial. To understand which policies might best protect patients, we examined the impact of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulatory safeguards on software-related technologies in recent years and the implications for newly passed legislative changes in regulatory policy. Using FDA databases, we identified all medical devices that were recalled from 2011 through 2015 primarily because of software defects. We counted all software-related recalls for each FDA risk category and evaluated each high-risk and moderate-risk recall of electronic medical records to determine the manufacturer, device classification, submission type, number of units, and product details. A total of 627 software devices (1.4 million units) were subject to recalls, with 12 of these devices (190,596 units) subject to the highest-risk recalls. Eleven of the devices recalled as high risk had entered the market through the FDA review process that does not require evidence of safety or effectiveness, and one device was completely exempt from regulatory review. The largest high-risk recall categories were anesthesiology and general hospital, with one each in cardiovascular and neurology. Five electronic medical record systems (9,347 units) were recalled for software defects classified as posing a moderate risk to patient safety. Software problems in medical devices are not rare and have the potential to negatively influence medical care. Premarket regulation has not captured all the software issues that could harm patients, evidenced by the potentially large number of patients exposed to software products later subject to high-risk and moderate-risk recalls. Provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act that became law in late 2016 will reduce safeguards further. Absent stronger regulations and implementation to create robust risk assessment and adverse event reporting, physicians and their patients are likely to be at risk from medical errors caused by software-related problems in medical devices. © 2017 Milbank Memorial Fund.

Innovative postmarket device evaluation using a quality registry to monitor thoracic endovascular aortic repair in the treatment of aortic dissection.

PubMed

Beck, Adam W; Lombardi, Joseph V; Abel, Dorothy B; Morales, J Pablo; Marinac-Dabic, Danica; Wang, Grace; Azizzadeh, Ali; Kern, John; Fillinger, Mark; White, Rodney; Cronenwett, Jack L; Cambria, Richard P

2017-05-01

United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-mandated postapproval studies have long been a mainstay of the continued evaluation of high-risk medical devices after initial marketing approval; however, these studies often present challenges related to patient/physician recruitment and retention. Retrospective single-center studies also do not fully represent the spectrum of real-world performance nor are they likely to have a sufficiently large enough sample size to detect important signals. In recent years, The FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health has been promoting the development and use of patient registries to advance infrastructure and methodologies for medical device investigation. The FDA 2012 document, "Strengthening the National System for Medical Device Post-market Surveillance," highlighted registries as a core foundational infrastructure when linked to other complementary data sources, including embedded unique device identification. The Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) thoracic endovascular aortic repair for type B aortic dissection project is an innovative method of using quality improvement registries to meet the needs of device evaluation after market approval. Here we report the organization and background of this project and highlight the innovation facilitated by collaboration of physicians, the FDA, and device manufacturers. This effort used an existing national network of VQI participants to capture patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aortic repair for acute type B aortic dissection within a registry that aligns with standard practice and existing quality efforts. The VQI captures detailed patient, device, and procedural data for consecutive eligible cases under the auspices of a Patient Safety Organization (PSO). Patients were divided into a 5-year follow-up group (200 acute; 200 chronic dissections) and a 1-year follow-up group (100 acute; 100 chronic). The 5-year cohort required additional imaging details, and the 1-year group required standard VQI registry data entry. The sample size of patients in each of the 5-year acute and chronic dissection arms was achieved ≤24 months of project initiation, and data capture for the 1-year follow-up group is also nearly complete. Data completeness and follow-up has been excellent, and the two FDA-approved devices for dissection are equally represented. Although the completeness of long-term follow-up is yet to be determined, the rapidity of data collection supports the use of this construct for device assessment after market approval. The alignment of this effort with routine clinical practice and ongoing quality improvement initiatives is critical and has required minimal additional effort by practitioners, thus facilitating patient inclusion. Importantly, the success and development of this unique project has helped inform FDA strategy for future device evaluation after market approval. Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

76 FR 31965 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-06-02

.... ENDURANT STENT GRAFT SYSTEM. FDA-2011-M-0040 P100010 Medtronic Cryocath, ARCTIC FRONT December 17, 2010. LP.... Vascular. LX VASCULAR STENT SYSTEMS. FDA-2011-M-0039 P070026 Depuy, Inc......... CERAMAX CERAMIC HIP.... EXPANDABLE RENAL STENT SYSTEM. FDA-2011-M-0056 P090013 Medtronic, Inc..... REVO MRI SURESCAN IPG February 8...

77 FR 60704 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-10-04

...] Fenestrated April 4, 2012. AAA Endovascular Graft (with the adjunctive Zenith Alignment Stent). P110029, FDA...\\ plus CoCr April 12, 2012. Coronary Stent on RX System. P110035, FDA-2012-M-0373 Boston Scientific Epic\\TM\\ Vascular Self- April 13, 2012. Corp. Expanding Stent System. P090015, FDA-2012-M-0390 Leica...

77 FR 15779 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-03-16

... 26, 2011. iliac balloon- expandable stent system. P100042, FDA-2011-M-0792 Gen-Probe APTIMA HPV assay..., 2011. XIENCE PRIME LL EVEROLIMUS-eluting coronary stent system. P100041, FDA-2011-M-0837 Edwards.... EVEROLIMUS-eluting platinum chromium coronary stent system. P100024, FDA-2011-M-0866 Dako Denmark A/S...

78 FR 17934 - Accessible Medical Device Labeling in a Standard Content and Format Public Workshop; Extension of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-03-25

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1205..., 2013. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FDA-2012- N-1205, by any of the... Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1205. All comments received may be posted [[Page 17935

21 CFR 99.305 - Exemption from the requirement to file a supplemental application.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

..., BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.305 Exemption from the... exemption from the requirement of a supplemental application, FDA shall approve or deny the application. (1) If FDA does not act on the application for an exemption within the 60-day period, the application for...

21 CFR 99.305 - Exemption from the requirement to file a supplemental application.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

..., BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.305 Exemption from the... exemption from the requirement of a supplemental application, FDA shall approve or deny the application. (1) If FDA does not act on the application for an exemption within the 60-day period, the application for...

21 CFR 99.305 - Exemption from the requirement to file a supplemental application.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

..., BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.305 Exemption from the... exemption from the requirement of a supplemental application, FDA shall approve or deny the application. (1) If FDA does not act on the application for an exemption within the 60-day period, the application for...

21 CFR 99.305 - Exemption from the requirement to file a supplemental application.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

..., BIOLOGICS, AND DEVICES FDA Action on Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.305 Exemption from the... exemption from the requirement of a supplemental application, FDA shall approve or deny the application. (1) If FDA does not act on the application for an exemption within the 60-day period, the application for...

Tattoo Removal: Options and Results

MedlinePlus

... tattoos. In recent years, FDA has cleared for marketing several types of lasers for tattoo lightening or ... Mehmet Kosoglu, Ph.D., who reviews applications for marketing clearances of laser-devices. There are several FDA- ...

78 FR 66746 - Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act; Notice to Public of Web Site Location of Fiscal...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-11-06

...] Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act; Notice to Public of Web Site Location of Fiscal Year 2014... and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the Web site location where the Agency will... documents, FDA has committed to updating its Web site in a timely manner to reflect the Agency's review of...

77 FR 70168 - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; The Content of Investigational...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-11-23

...The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled ``The Content of Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) and Premarket Approval (PMA) Applications for Artificial Pancreas Device Systems.'' FDA is issuing this guidance to inform industry and Agency staff of its recommendations for analytical and clinical performance studies to support premarket submissions for artificial pancreas systems.

FDA Benchmark Medical Device Flow Models for CFD Validation.

PubMed

Malinauskas, Richard A; Hariharan, Prasanna; Day, Steven W; Herbertson, Luke H; Buesen, Martin; Steinseifer, Ulrich; Aycock, Kenneth I; Good, Bryan C; Deutsch, Steven; Manning, Keefe B; Craven, Brent A

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is increasingly being used to develop blood-contacting medical devices. However, the lack of standardized methods for validating CFD simulations and blood damage predictions limits its use in the safety evaluation of devices. Through a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initiative, two benchmark models of typical device flow geometries (nozzle and centrifugal blood pump) were tested in multiple laboratories to provide experimental velocities, pressures, and hemolysis data to support CFD validation. In addition, computational simulations were performed by more than 20 independent groups to assess current CFD techniques. The primary goal of this article is to summarize the FDA initiative and to report recent findings from the benchmark blood pump model study. Discrepancies between CFD predicted velocities and those measured using particle image velocimetry most often occurred in regions of flow separation (e.g., downstream of the nozzle throat, and in the pump exit diffuser). For the six pump test conditions, 57% of the CFD predictions of pressure head were within one standard deviation of the mean measured values. Notably, only 37% of all CFD submissions contained hemolysis predictions. This project aided in the development of an FDA Guidance Document on factors to consider when reporting computational studies in medical device regulatory submissions. There is an accompanying podcast available for this article. Please visit the journal's Web site (www.asaiojournal.com) to listen.

Right to experimental treatment: FDA new drug approval, constitutional rights, and the public's health.

PubMed

Leonard, Elizabeth Weeks

2009-01-01

On May 2, 2006, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a startling opinion, Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs v. Eschenbach, held that terminally ill patients who have exhausted all other available options have a constitutional right to experimental treatment that FDA has not yet approved. Although ultimately overturned by the full court, Abigail Alliance generated considerable interest from various constituencies. Meanwhile, FDA proposed similar regulatory amendments, as have lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Congress. But proponents of expanded access fail to consider public health and consumer safety concerns. In particular, allowing patients to try unproven treatments, outside of controlled clinical trials risks both the study's outcome and the health of patients who might benefit from the deliberate, careful process of new drug approval as it currently operates under FDA's auspices.

76 FR 50485 - Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-08-15

...] Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Amendment of Notice AGENCY... an amendment to the notice of meeting of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical... Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee would be held on September...

Health care providers and direct-to-consumer access and advertising of genetic testing in the United States

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Marketing pressures, regulatory policies, clinical guidelines, and consumer demand all affect health care providers' knowledge and use of health-related genetic tests that are sold and/or advertised to consumers. In addition, clinical guidelines, regulatory policies, and educational efforts are needed to promote the informed use of genetic tests that are sold and advertised to consumers and health care providers. A shift in culture regarding the regulation of genetic tests that are sold directly to consumers is suggested: by recent actions taken by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including letters sent to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies stating that their tests meet the definition of medical devices; by public meetings held by the FDA to discuss laboratory developed tests; and by the convening of the Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel to gather input on scientific issues concerning DTC genetic tests that make medical claims. This review provides a brief overview of DTC advertising and the regulation of pharmaceuticals and genetic tests in the United States. It highlights recent changes in the regulatory culture regarding genetic tests that are sold to consumers, and discusses the impact on health care providers of selling and advertising genetic tests directly to consumers. PMID:22204616

Health care providers and direct-to-consumer access and advertising of genetic testing in the United States.

PubMed

Myers, Melanie F

2011-12-28

Marketing pressures, regulatory policies, clinical guidelines, and consumer demand all affect health care providers' knowledge and use of health-related genetic tests that are sold and/or advertised to consumers. In addition, clinical guidelines, regulatory policies, and educational efforts are needed to promote the informed use of genetic tests that are sold and advertised to consumers and health care providers. A shift in culture regarding the regulation of genetic tests that are sold directly to consumers is suggested: by recent actions taken by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including letters sent to direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing companies stating that their tests meet the definition of medical devices; by public meetings held by the FDA to discuss laboratory developed tests; and by the convening of the Molecular and Clinical Genetics Panel to gather input on scientific issues concerning DTC genetic tests that make medical claims. This review provides a brief overview of DTC advertising and the regulation of pharmaceuticals and genetic tests in the United States. It highlights recent changes in the regulatory culture regarding genetic tests that are sold to consumers, and discusses the impact on health care providers of selling and advertising genetic tests directly to consumers.

Products Claiming to "Cure" Cancer Are a Cruel Deception

MedlinePlus

... Products For Consumers Home For Consumers Consumer Updates Products Claiming to "Cure" Cancer Are a Cruel Deception ... About FDA Contact FDA Browse by Product Area Product Areas back Food Drugs Medical Devices Radiation-Emitting ...

Dry Mouth? Don't Delay Treatment

MedlinePlus

... and use (metabolize) the sugar to grow. “A by-product of the metabolized sugar is acid, which starts ... Releases Consumer Updates About FDA Contact FDA Browse by Product Area Product Areas back Food Drugs Medical Devices ...

Delegations of authority and organization; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research--FDA. Final rule.

PubMed

1991-11-21

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the regulations for delegations of authority relating to premarket approval of products that are or contain a biologic, a device, or a drug. The amendment grants directors, deputy directors, and certain other supervisory personnel in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) reciprocal premarket approval authority to approve such products.

Epidural conduction device fractures and complications of retained fragments.

PubMed

Fischer, Robert

2008-02-01

During the past 3 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received a growing number of adverse event reports on the breakage or fracturing and retention of anesthetic conduction device tips with associated complications. Serious injuries and other problems such as spinal stenosis, nerve root compression, and subcutaneous effusion can result. Several case reports demonstrate how the problems occur; some illustrate the severity of the problem. All cases are from adverse event reports in the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database. Frequently, in the interest of not causing patient harm, a device fragment might not be removed as long as the patient is not neurologically compromised or at risk for infection or there is little potential for migration of the fragmented piece. On many occasions, the fragments remain in patients without their knowledge. The FDA wants to raise awareness of the problem and its potential impact in creating complications, encourage the practice of informing patients of the fragmented device, and promote reporting of such incidents to CDRH via the MedWatch reporting system. Based on a search of the current literature, recommendations for prevention are suggested.

75 FR 49502 - Medical Device User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Request for Comments

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-08-13

... Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) requires that before FDA begins negotiations with the...)) requires that, before FDA begins negotiations with the regulated industry on user fee reauthorization, we...

A review of complications associated with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty as reported to the Food and Drug Administration medical device related web site.

PubMed

Nussbaum, David A; Gailloud, Philippe; Murphy, Kieran

2004-11-01

In 2002, approximately 38,000 vertebroplasties and 16,000 kyphoplasties were performed in the United States. As the use of both modalities for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures has increased, so have questions regarding safety and efficacy. The authors addressed this by reviewing both the current literature and complications data reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health through the on-line database (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/maude.html) and through the Office of the Freedom of Information Act at the FDA. Although both procedures are largely safe, the FDA data highlight two main concerns: reactions to the use of acrylic (polymethylmethacrylate) bone cement, including hypotension and, in some cases, death, especially when multiple vertebral levels are treated in one setting; and a possible increased risk with kyphoplasty of pedicle fracture and cord compression.

Biotechnology stock prices before public announcements: evidence of insider trading?

PubMed

Overgaard, C B; van den Broek, R A; Kim, J H; Detsky, A S

2000-03-01

Unique financial challenges faced by biotechnology companies developing therapeutics have contributed to the creation of a highly sensitive market, where stock prices are capable of great fluctuation. The potential for significant financial reward and the nature of the scientific review process make this industry susceptible to illegal share trading on nonpublic information. We examined stock prices of biotechnology products before and after announcement of Phase III clinical trial and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Advisory Panel results for indirect evidence of insider trading. Biotechnology stock prices were recorded for 98 products undergoing Phase III clinical trials and 49 products undergoing FDA Advisory Panel review between 1990 and 1998. Prices were recorded for 120 consecutive trading days before and after public announcement of these two events. We compared the average change in stock price of successful products ('winners') with unsuccessful products ('losers') before the public announcement of results for both critical events. The difference between average stock price change from 120 to 3 days before public announcement of results of Phase III clinical trial winners (+27%) and losers (-4%) was highly significant (P = 0.0007). A similar but non-significant difference was observed between the average stock price of winning (+27%) and losing products (+13%) before FDA Advisory Panel review announcements (P = 0.25). Our results provide indirect evidence that insider trading may be common in the biotechnology industry. Clinical investigators may wish to consider this issue before participating in any equity position in the biotechnology industry, especially if they are going to perform research for those companies.

Use of endpoint adjudication to improve the quality and validity of endpoint assessment for medical device development and post marketing evaluation: Rationale and best practices. A report from the cardiac safety research consortium.

PubMed

Seltzer, Jonathan H; Heise, Ted; Carson, Peter; Canos, Daniel; Hiatt, Jo Carol; Vranckx, Pascal; Christen, Thomas; Cutlip, Donald E

2017-08-01

This white paper provides a summary of presentations, discussions and conclusions of a Thinktank entitled "The Role of Endpoint Adjudication in Medical Device Clinical Trials". The think tank was cosponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Committee, MDEpiNet and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and was convened at the FDA's White Oak headquarters on March 11, 2016. Attention was focused on tailoring best practices for evaluation of endpoints in medical device clinical trials, practical issues in endpoint adjudication of therapeutic, diagnostic, biomarker and drug-device combinations, and the role of adjudication in regulatory and reimbursement issues throughout the device lifecycle. Attendees included representatives from medical device companies, the FDA, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), end point adjudication specialist groups, clinical research organizations, and active, academically based adjudicators. The manuscript presents recommendations from the think tank regarding (1) rationale for when adjudication is appropriate, (2) best practices establishment and operation of a medical device adjudication committee and (3) the role of endpoint adjudication for post market evaluation in the emerging era of real world evidence. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Quantifying The Food And Drug Administration's rulemaking delays highlights the need for transparency.

PubMed

Hwang, Thomas J; Avorn, Jerry; Carpenter, Daniel; Kesselheim, Aaron S

2014-02-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) frequently uses its rulemaking process to establish or modify the way it regulates drugs, medical devices, and other medical products. The federal agency's rulemaking is controversial because of its perceived complexity, lack of transparency, and lengthy duration. To shed light on the FDA's rulemaking process, we examined the evolution of significant rules that the agency published during 2000-12 for drugs, devices, and other medical products. We found that the rules' median time to finalization was 7.3 years, with the pre-rule phase and postreview deliberation within the FDA accounting for the majority of that time. Rules that involved mandatory cost-benefit analyses were associated with an additional delay of approximately two years. We also found that longer review times were significantly associated with a reduction in the stringency of final rules, compared to the originally proposed versions. We recommend improving FDA's rulemaking by allocating additional resources to increase efficiency and by embarking on initiatives to promote transparency by the FDA and other parts of the executive branch.

Comparison of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel and Prodesse Real-Time PCR Assays for Detection of Respiratory Pathogens ▿ †

PubMed Central

Loeffelholz, M. J.; Pong, D. L.; Pyles, R. B.; Xiong, Y.; Miller, A. L.; Bufton, K. K.; Chonmaitree, T.

2011-01-01

We compared the diagnostic performance and overall respiratory pathogen detection rate of the premarket version of the FilmArray Respiratory Panel (RP) multiplex PCR assay (Idaho Technology, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT) with those of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared Prodesse ProFlu+, ProFAST+, ProParaflu+, Pro hMPV+, and ProAdeno+ real-time PCR assays (Gen-Probe, San Diego, CA). The assays were performed on a panel of 192 nasopharyngeal-secretion specimens collected from 81 children under 1 year of age with upper respiratory tract symptoms. To resolve discordant results and confirm pathogens detected only by the larger FilmArray panel, we performed laboratory-developed real-time PCR assays. Among viruses detectable by both commercial assays (adenovirus, human metapneumovirus, influenza A virus, influenza B virus, parainfluenza viruses 1 to 3, and respiratory syncytial virus), the FilmArray and Prodesse assays showed good overall agreement (181/192 [94.3%]; kappa = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79 to 0.94). FilmArray RP detected more parainfluenza viruses 1 and 3 than ProParaflu+ (18 versus 13) while ProAdeno+ detected more adenoviruses (11 versus 6), but these differences were not statistically significant. Additionally, FilmArray RP detected 138 pathogens (confirmed as true positives) not included in the Prodesse assays (rhinovirus [RV]/enterovirus [EV], 118; bocavirus, 8; coronavirus, 7; parainfluenza virus 4, 4; Mycoplasma pneumoniae, 1). FilmArray RP was cleared by the FDA following the completion of this study. The FDA-cleared version includes the following targets: adenovirus, coronaviruses HKU1 and NL63, human metapneumovirus (hMPV), influenza A virus (to type level only), influenza A H1 seasonal virus, influenza A H3 seasonal virus, influenza A virus H1-2009, influenza B virus, parainfluenza viruses 1 to 4, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and RV/EV (no differentiation). The larger panel in the FilmArray RP assay allowed the detection of additional respiratory pathogens compared to the Prodesse assays. In this population of young children with upper respiratory tract infection, RV/EV accounted for the majority of the additional pathogens detected by FilmArray RP. PMID:21998418

21 CFR 822.15 - How long must I conduct postmarket surveillance of my device?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... Radiological Health's (CDRH') Web site (http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHOmbudsman/default.htm.). The 36-month period refers to the surveillance period, not the...

21 CFR 822.15 - How long must I conduct postmarket surveillance of my device?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... Radiological Health's (CDRH') Web site (http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHOmbudsman/default.htm.). The 36-month period refers to the surveillance period, not the...

Do Not Give Infants Cough and Cold Products Designed for Older Children

MedlinePlus

... Features Use Caution When Giving Cough and Cold Products to Kids Share Tweet Linkedin Pin it More ... About FDA Contact FDA Browse by Product Area Product Areas back Food Drugs Medical Devices Radiation-Emitting ...

21 CFR 888.3080 - Intervertebral body fusion device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... devices that contain bone grafting material. The special control is the FDA guidance document entitled... devices that include any therapeutic biologic (e.g., bone morphogenic protein). Intervertebral body fusion...

21 CFR 888.3080 - Intervertebral body fusion device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... devices that contain bone grafting material. The special control is the FDA guidance document entitled... devices that include any therapeutic biologic (e.g., bone morphogenic protein). Intervertebral body fusion...

21 CFR 888.3080 - Intervertebral body fusion device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... devices that contain bone grafting material. The special control is the FDA guidance document entitled... devices that include any therapeutic biologic (e.g., bone morphogenic protein). Intervertebral body fusion...

21 CFR 888.3080 - Intervertebral body fusion device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... devices that contain bone grafting material. The special control is the FDA guidance document entitled... devices that include any therapeutic biologic (e.g., bone morphogenic protein). Intervertebral body fusion...

75 FR 38532 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-07-02

... LLIAC March 5, FDA-2010-M-0135 Scientific PREMOUNTED STENT SYSTEM 2010 Corp. P090006 Medtronic COMPLETE SE VASCULAR March 17, FDA-2010-M-0158 Vascular STENT SYSTEM 2010 II. Electronic Access Persons with...

Indoor tanning injuries: an evaluation of FDA adverse event reporting data.

PubMed

Dowdy, John C; Sayre, Robert M; Shepherd, James G

2009-08-01

In 1979 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) designated indoor tanning units would be regulated medical devices and that each must have an exposure timer. In 1985 FDA added a scheduled series of doses designed to allow tanning with little risk of concomitant sunburn. Subsequently FDA/CDRH maintained databases in which medical device associated injuries were reported. The databases, MAUDE and its predecessor MDR, are available online. While these records, in part, are not intended for evaluation of adverse event rates, analysis provides insight into the etiology of UV-related tanning injuries. We compiled 142 records reported for 1985-2006 including 22% noninjury malfunctions. Of the reported injuries approximately 50% resulted from UV exposure, an average of <1/year resulted in hospitalization. At least 36% of the UV-related injuries were attributable to various (user/operator) noncompliance with FDA sunlamp guidance policies. During 1985-1995 there were six times more UV injuries than 1996-2006, presumably reflecting cessation of much mandatory reporting in 1996. Injury reports declined steady from 1997 to 2006. FDA guidance appears most efficacious in injury prevention and we encourage its incorporation into the enforceable performance standard. We also advise that tanning industry professional training programs seek standardization/accreditation of their personnel certifications through recognized accreditation bodies such as ANSI or ISO/IEC.

Evaluating Imaging and Computer-aided Detection and Diagnosis Devices at the FDA

PubMed Central

Gallas, Brandon D.; Chan, Heang-Ping; D’Orsi, Carl J.; Dodd, Lori E.; Giger, Maryellen L.; Gur, David; Krupinski, Elizabeth A.; Metz, Charles E.; Myers, Kyle J.; Obuchowski, Nancy A.; Sahiner, Berkman; Toledano, Alicia Y.; Zuley, Margarita L.

2017-01-01

This report summarizes the Joint FDA-MIPS Workshop on Methods for the Evaluation of Imaging and Computer-Assist Devices. The purpose of the workshop was to gather information on the current state of the science and facilitate consensus development on statistical methods and study designs for the evaluation of imaging devices to support US Food and Drug Administration submissions. Additionally, participants expected to identify gaps in knowledge and unmet needs that should be addressed in future research. This summary is intended to document the topics that were discussed at the meeting and disseminate the lessons that have been learned through past studies of imaging and computer-aided detection and diagnosis device performance. PMID:22306064

Working draft of the FDA GMP final rule (Part I).

PubMed

Donawa, M E

1995-10-01

On 24 July 1995, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a notice of availability of a working draft of a final rule for new good manufacturing practice (GMP) regulations for medical devices. The new regulations could be in force by late 1996. This is the first of a two-part series of articles discussing key provisions of the working draft and their importance to companies marketing or planning to market devices in the US.

Evidence-Based Evaluation of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Complications Based on Filter Type

PubMed Central

Deso, Steven E.; Idakoji, Ibrahim A.; Kuo, William T.

2016-01-01

Many inferior vena cava (IVC) filter types, along with their specific risks and complications, are not recognized. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the various FDA-approved IVC filter types to determine device-specific risks, as a way to help identify patients who may benefit from ongoing follow-up versus prompt filter retrieval. An evidence-based electronic search (FDA Premarket Notification, MEDLINE, FDA MAUDE) was performed to identify all IVC filter types and device-specific complications from 1980 to 2014. Twenty-three IVC filter types (14 retrievable, 9 permanent) were identified. The devices were categorized as follows: conical (n = 14), conical with umbrella (n = 1), conical with cylindrical element (n = 2), biconical with cylindrical element (n = 2), helical (n = 1), spiral (n = 1), and complex (n = 1). Purely conical filters were associated with the highest reported risks of penetration (90–100%). Filters with cylindrical or umbrella elements were associated with the highest reported risk of IVC thrombosis (30–50%). Conical Bard filters were associated with the highest reported risks of fracture (40%). The various FDA-approved IVC filter types were evaluated for device-specific complications based on best current evidence. This information can be used to guide and optimize clinical management in patients with indwelling IVC filters. PMID:27247477

76 FR 7222 - Medical Device Innovation Initiative; Public Meeting; Request for Comments

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-02-09

...] Medical Device Innovation Initiative; Public Meeting; Request for Comments AGENCY: Food and Drug... Administration (FDA) is announcing a public meeting entitled ``CDRH's Medical Device Innovation Initiative Public... Center for Devices and Radiological Health's (CDRH) document, ``Medical Device Innovation Initiative...

77 FR 18829 - Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-03-28

...] Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY... public. Name of Committee: Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory... and 11, 2012, the committee will discuss general issues related to medical devices intended for obese...

78 FR 77688 - Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-12-24

...] Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug...: Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. General Function of the Committee: To... Swink, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave...

78 FR 68853 - International Medical Device Regulators Forum; Medical Device Single Audit Program International...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-11-15

...] International Medical Device Regulators Forum; Medical Device Single Audit Program International Coalition Pilot... Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing participation in the Medical Device Single Audit Program International Coalition Pilot Program. The Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) was designed and...

Summary of safety and effectiveness data from FDA: a valuable source of information on the performance of global endometrial ablation devices.

PubMed

Cooper, Jay; Gimpelson, Richard J

2004-04-01

To provide an overview of the approved second-generation endometrial ablation technologies. Data from the FDA Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data were compared for Thermachoice, HydroThermablator, Her Option and Novasure devices. At 12 months' follow-up, Novasure and HydroThermablator had the highest amenorrhea rates. Thermochoice and Novasure had the highest success rates at 12 months. Novasure had the lowest adverse event rates in the first 24 hours, between 24 hours and 2 weeks and between 2 weeks and 1 year of follow-up. Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data, obtainable on the FDA Web site, offers objective data for comparing second-generation endometrial ablation technologies.

Regulatory issues for computerized electrocardiographic devices.

PubMed

Muni, Neal I; Ho, Charles; Mallis, Elias

2004-01-01

Computerized electrocardiogram (ECG) devices are regulated in the U.S. by the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). This article aims to highlight the salient points of the FDA regulatory review process, including the important distinction between a "tool" claim and a "clinical" claim in the intended use of a computerized ECG device. Specifically, a tool claim relates to the ability of the device to accurately measure a certain ECG parameter, such as T-wave alternans (TWA), while a clinical claim imputes a particular health hazard associated with the identified parameter, such as increased risk of ventricular tachyarrhythmia or sudden death. Given that both types of claims are equally important and receive the same regulatory scrutiny, the manufacturer of a new ECG diagnostic device should consider the distinction and regulatory pathways for approval between the two types of claims discussed in this paper.

75 FR 35495 - Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-06-22

...] Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug...: Ophthalmic Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. General Function of the Committee: To... Glaukos iStent Trabecular Micro-Bypass Stent, Model GTS-100 L/R, sponsored by Glaukos Corp. The device is...

21 CFR 810.10 - Cease distribution and notification order.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE RECALL AUTHORITY Mandatory Medical Device Recall Procedures § 810... usual name of the device; (iii) The model, catalog, or product code numbers of the device; and (iv) The... opportunity to consult with the agency, FDA finds that there is a reasonable probability that a device...

21 CFR 810.10 - Cease distribution and notification order.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE RECALL AUTHORITY Mandatory Medical Device Recall Procedures § 810... usual name of the device; (iii) The model, catalog, or product code numbers of the device; and (iv) The... opportunity to consult with the agency, FDA finds that there is a reasonable probability that a device...

76 FR 36548 - Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-06-22

...] Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and... of Committee: Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. General... also comes with a sheath, introducer, loader, dilator, balloon (used to pre-dilate the native annulus...

75 FR 57968 - Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-09-23

...] Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY... public. Name of Committee: Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory... committee will discuss, make recommendations, and vote on information related to the PMA for the LAP-BAND...

77 FR 73035 - Request for Notification From Industry Organizations Interested in Participating in the Selection...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-12-07

... Committee (MDAC) in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) notify FDA in writing. FDA is also... in the CDRH. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a...

Characterization and outcomes of reinterventions in Food and Drug Administration-approved versus trial endovascular aneurysm repair devices.

PubMed

Fairman, Alexander S; Wang, Grace J; Jackson, Benjamin M; Foley, Paul J; Damrauer, Scott M; Kalapatapu, Venkat; Golden, Michael A; Fairman, Ronald M

2018-04-01

Published rates of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) range from 10% to 30%. We evaluated a single university center's experience with reinterventions in the context of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and trial devices. Retrospective data collection was performed for patients who underwent infrarenal EVAR and required reintervention from 2000 to 2016. Trial devices included those used in FDA feasibility and pivotal trials. Time-to-event analysis was performed using Cox regression. Predictors of mortality and explantation were evaluated using logistic regression; survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier methods. From 2000 to 2016, there were 1835 EVARs performed, and 137 patients (116 men; mean age, 72.2 ± 10.0 years) underwent reintervention with a mean aneurysm size of 5.9 ± 1.2 cm. The median follow-up was 5 years with an overall survival of 70.1%. The overall reintervention rate was 7.5%. FDA-approved devices had a reintervention rate of 6.4%, whereas trial devices had a rate of 14.4% (P < .001). For all devices, the most common cause of reintervention was type II endoleak (52.5%), followed by type I endoleak (18.2%), type III endoleak (9.5%), limb kink (7.3%), iliac occlusive disease (5.8%), endotension (1.5%), and other. The overall mean time to first reintervention was 2.3 ± 2.5 years, and univariate Cox regression identified male gender (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-3.10; P = .010) and age at the time of EVAR (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.05; P = .006) as risk factors for time to first reintervention. Among patients requiring reintervention, the mean number of reinterventions for trial devices was significantly greater than that for FDA-approved devices (2.18 vs 1.65; P = .01). Trial devices requiring reintervention had a nearly threefold higher odds for the need for more than two reinterventions (odds ratio, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.12-7.37; P = .034). Trial device, cause of reintervention, and type of reintervention were not predictive of the need for explantation or mortality, but the number of reinterventions was significantly associated with the need for explantation (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.17-2.96; P = .012). EVAR device and the need for explantation did not have an impact on mortality. Despite the rigorous nature of patient enrollment in clinical trials and the development of newer iterations of investigational devices, patients undergoing EVAR with trial devices are more likely to undergo a greater number of reinterventions than with FDA-approved devices. Although mortality and the need for explantation were not significantly associated with trial devices, the finding of a greater number of reinterventions highlights the need to properly inform patients willing to partake in investigational device trials. Copyright © 2017 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Use of Symbols in Labeling. Final rule.

PubMed

2016-06-15

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is issuing this final rule revising its medical device and certain biological product labeling regulations to explicitly allow for the optional inclusion of graphical representations of information, or symbols, in labeling (including labels) without adjacent explanatory text (referred to in this document as "stand-alone symbols") if certain requirements are met. The final rule also specifies that the use of symbols, accompanied by adjacent explanatory text continues to be permitted. FDA is also revising its prescription device labeling regulations to allow the use of the symbol statement "Rx only" or "[rx] only" in the labeling for prescription devices.

Statistical innovations in the medical device world sparked by the FDA.

PubMed

Campbell, Gregory; Yue, Lilly Q

2016-01-01

The world of medical devices while highly diverse is extremely innovative, and this facilitates the adoption of innovative statistical techniques. Statisticians in the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have provided leadership in implementing statistical innovations. The innovations discussed include: the incorporation of Bayesian methods in clinical trials, adaptive designs, the use and development of propensity score methodology in the design and analysis of non-randomized observational studies, the use of tipping-point analysis for missing data, techniques for diagnostic test evaluation, bridging studies for companion diagnostic tests, quantitative benefit-risk decisions, and patient preference studies.

Evaluating oversight of human drugs and medical devices: a case study of the FDA and implications for nanobiotechnology.

PubMed

Paradise, Jordan; Tisdale, Alison W; Hall, Ralph F; Kokkoli, Efrosini

2009-01-01

This article evaluates the oversight of drugs and medical devices by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using an integration of public policy, law, and bioethics approaches and employing multiple assessment criteria, including economic, social, safety, and technological. Criteria assessment and expert elicitation are combined with existing literature, case law, and regulations in an integrative historical case studies approach. We then use our findings as a tool to explore possibilities for effective oversight and regulatory mechanisms for nanobiotechnology. Section I describes oversight mechanisms for human drugs and medical devices and presents current nanotechnology products. Section II describes the results of expert elicitation research. Section III highlights key criteria and relates them to the literature and larger debate. We conclude with broad lessons for the oversight of nanobiotechnology informed by Sections I-III in order to provide useful analysis from multiple disciplines and perspectives to guide discussions regarding appropriate FDA oversight.

21 CFR 814.39 - PMA supplements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... which does not affect the safety or effectiveness of the device. (c) All procedures and actions that... copies and additional information if requested by FDA. The time frames for review of, and FDA action on... strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or information about an adverse reaction for which there...

Exceptions or alternatives to labeling requirements for products held by the Strategic National Stockpile. Final rule.

PubMed

2012-02-06

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is adopting as a final rule, without change, the interim final rule that issued regulations permitting FDA Center Directors to grant exceptions or alternatives to certain regulatory labeling requirements applicable to human drugs, biological products, or medical devices that are or will be included in the Strategic National Stockpile (SNS). FDA is taking this action to complete the rulemaking initiated with the interim final rule.

FDA's regulation of tanning beds: how much heat?

PubMed

Knapp, Veronica

2011-01-01

This paper considers the problem of indoor tanning bed use by teenagers. The paper explores FDA's current authority to regulate tanning lamps as Class I medical devices, concluding that FDA's authority is poorly tailored to affect teenagers' repeated use of these products. An outright ban is unlikely; therefore, the best available options are to regulate access by minors and to amend the warning label requirements to reflect the current state of knowledge about the risks of tanning bed use.

21 CFR 888.3660 - Shoulder joint metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES ORTHOPEDIC DEVICES Prosthetic Devices § 888.3660... device are: (1) FDA's: (i) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical... metal/polymer semi-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a...

21 CFR 888.3650 - Shoulder joint metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES ORTHOPEDIC DEVICES Prosthetic Devices § 888.3650... are: (1) FDA's: (i) “Use of International Standard ISO 10993 ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices... metal/polymer non-constrained cemented prosthesis is a device intended to be implanted to replace a...

75 FR 44172 - Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices; Designation of Special Controls for Certain Class II...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-07-28

... [Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0493] RIN 0910-ZA37 Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices; Designation of... document proposed to amend certain neurological and physical medicine device regulations to establish... to amend certain neurological device and physical medicine device regulations to establish special...

Medical Device Safety

MedlinePlus

... Cooling and Heating Systems and HX2™ Temperature Management Systems Due to Revised Cleaning Instructions 05/07/18 More Medical Device Recalls Recent Medical Device Safety Communications FDA analyses and recommendations for patients and health care providers about ongoing ...

Regulatory Requirements for Devices for the Handicapped.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Stigi, John, Ed.; Rivera, Richard J., Ed.

This booklet explains in question/answer form the basic regulatory requirements established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the federal government concerning the manufacture, marketing and distribution of medical devices (including implantable devices and devices previously regulated as drugs) for persons with disabilities. Topics…

Gastroenterology-urology devices; reclassification of implanted blood access devices. Final rule.

PubMed

2014-07-25

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a final order to reclassify implanted blood access devices, a preamendments class III device, into class II (special controls) based on new information and subject to premarket notification and to further clarify the identification.

76 FR 43847 - Poison Prevention Packaging Requirements; Exemption of Powder Formulations of Colesevelam...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-22

... FDA-regulated drug, biologic, medical device, dietary supplement, or cosmetic. (See http://www.fda.gov... powders generally present a low risk because they are more difficult to ingest, particularly in large quantities. Generally, with the exception of caustics, the primary exposure risk associated with powders is...

77 FR 34954 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Guidance on...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-06-12

... protection of public health, safety, and ethical standards, FDA has established human subject protection... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0560... Consent for In Vitro Diagnostic Device Studies Using Leftover Human Specimens That Are Not Individually...

78 FR 12329 - Distinguishing Medical Device Recalls From Product Enhancements; Reporting Requirements; Draft...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-02-22

... Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0114...

77 FR 8260 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Device...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-02-14

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0110...: Manufacturer, Importer, User Facility, and Distributor Reporting AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public...

76 FR 43691 - Unique Device Identification for Postmarket Surveillance and Enforcement; Public Workshop

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-21

... Internet access, please contact Jay Crowley (see Contact Person) to register. Registration requests should... lodging, and other relevant information on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/UDI . Comments: Regardless... Sentinel Initiative, on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/FDAsSentinelInitiative/default.htm...

Provider experiences with negative-pressure wound therapy systems.

PubMed

Kaufman-Rivi, Diana; Hazlett, Antoinette C; Hardy, Mary Anne; Smith, Jacquelyn M; Seid, Heather B

2013-07-01

MedWatch, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) nationwide adverse event reporting system, serves to monitor device performance after a medical device is approved or cleared for market. Through the MedWatch adverse event reporting system, the FDA receives Medical Device Reports of deaths and serious injuries with negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) systems, many of which are used in homes and in extended-care facilities. In response to reported events, this study was conducted to obtain additional information about device issues that healthcare professionals face in these settings, as well as challenges that caregivers might encounter using this technology at home. The study was exploratory and descriptive in nature. The FDA surveyed wound care specialists and professional home healthcare providers to learn about users' experiences with NPWT. In the first phase of the study, a semistructured questionnaire was developed for telephone interviews and self-administration. In the second phase, a web-based survey was adapted from the semistructured instrument. Respondent concerns primarily centered on issues not directly related to the NPWT devices: NPWT prescription, provider education in addition to patient training and appropriate wound management practices, notably ongoing wound assessment, and patient monitoring. Overall, respondents thought that there was a definite benefit to NPWT, regardless of the care setting, and that it was a safe therapy when prescribed and administered appropriately.

Medical devices; hematology and pathology devices; classification of the Factor V Leiden DNA mutation detection systems devices. Final rule.

PubMed

2004-03-16

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the Factor V Leiden deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mutation detections systems device into class II (special controls). The special control that will apply to the device is the guidance document entitled "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Factor V Leiden DNA Mutation Detection Systems." The agency is taking this action in response to a petition submitted under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 amendments), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (SMDA), the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), and the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The agency is classifying this device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is publishing a notice of availability of a guidance document that is the special control for this device.

76 FR 44489 - Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-26

...; Hazards caused by electromagnetic interference and electrostatic discharge hazards; and Hearing loss. FDA... electromagnetic Electromagnetic compatibility. interference and electrostatic discharge hazards. Labeling. Hearing...

75 FR 51829 - Public Workshop on Medical Devices and Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-08-23

...] Public Workshop on Medical Devices and Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and... entitled ``Medical Devices & Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and Biocompatibility... experience or expertise with nanotechnology. There will be a limited number of round-table participants. FDA...

75 FR 53704 - Public Workshop on Medical Devices and Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-09-01

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0427] Public Workshop on Medical Devices and Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and... Devices & Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and Biocompatibility Considerations.'' The...

Syndromic Panel-Based Testing in Clinical Microbiology.

PubMed

Ramanan, Poornima; Bryson, Alexandra L; Binnicker, Matthew J; Pritt, Bobbi S; Patel, Robin

2018-01-01

The recent development of commercial panel-based molecular diagnostics for the rapid detection of pathogens in positive blood culture bottles, respiratory specimens, stool, and cerebrospinal fluid has resulted in a paradigm shift in clinical microbiology and clinical practice. This review focuses on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved/cleared multiplex molecular panels with more than five targets designed to assist in the diagnosis of bloodstream, respiratory tract, gastrointestinal, or central nervous system infections. While these panel-based assays have the clear advantages of a rapid turnaround time and the detection of a large number of microorganisms and promise to improve health care, they present certain challenges, including cost and the definition of ideal test utilization strategies (i.e., optimal ordering) and test interpretation. Copyright © 2017 American Society for Microbiology.

The Food and Drug Administration and pragmatic clinical trials of marketed medical products

PubMed Central

Anderson, Monique L; Griffin, Joseph; Goldkind, Sara F; Zeitler, Emily P; Wing, Liz; Al-Khatib, Sana M; Sherman, Rachel E

2015-01-01

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can help answer questions of comparative effectiveness for interventions routinely used in medical practice. PCTs may examine outcomes of one or more marketed medical products, and they are heterogeneous in design and risk. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of individuals enrolled in clinical investigations, as well as assuring the integrity upon which approval of medical products are made. The FDA has broad jurisdiction over drugs and medical devices (whether or not they are approved for marketing), and as such, clinical investigations of these products are subject to applicable FDA regulations. While many PCTs will meet the criteria for an exemption from the requirements for an investigational new drug application (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE), in general all clinical investigations of medical products that fall under FDA jurisdiction must adhere to regulations for informed consent and review by an institutional review board (IRB). We are concerned that current FDA requirements for obtaining individual informed consent may deter or delay the conduct of PCTs intended to develop reliable evidence of comparative safety and effectiveness of approved medical products that are regulated by the FDA. Under current regulations, there are no described mechanisms to alter or waive informed consent to make it less burdensome or more practicable for low-risk PCTs. We recommend that the FDA establish a risk-based approach to obtaining informed consent in PCTs that would facilitate the conduct of PCTs without compromising the protection of enrolled individuals or the integrity of the resulting data. PMID:26374684

Testing consumer perception of nutrient content claims using conjoint analysis.

PubMed

Drewnowski, Adam; Moskowitz, Howard; Reisner, Michele; Krieger, Bert

2010-05-01

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposes to establish standardized and mandatory criteria upon which front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labelling must be based. The present study aimed to estimate the relative contribution of declared amounts of different nutrients to the perception of the overall 'healthfulness' of foods by the consumer. Protein, fibre, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium and iron were nutrients to encourage. Total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, total and added sugar, and sodium were the nutrients to limit. Two content claims per nutrient used the FDA-approved language. An online consumer panel (n 320) exposed to multiple messages (n 48) rated the healthfulness of each hypothetical food product. Utility functions were constructed using conjoint analysis, based on multiple logistic regression and maximum likelihood estimation. Consumer perception of healthfulness was most strongly driven by the declared presence of protein, fibre, calcium and vitamin C and by the declared total absence of saturated fat and sodium. For this adult panel, total and added sugar had lower utilities and contributed less to the perception of healthfulness. There were major differences between women and men. Conjoint analysis can lead to a better understanding of how consumers process information about the full nutrition profile of a product, and is a powerful tool for the testing of nutrient content claims. Such studies can help the FDA develop science-based criteria for nutrient profiling that underlies FOP and shelf labelling.

Regulation and Device Development: Tips for Optimizing Your Experience With the Food and Drug Administration.

PubMed

Brooks, Steven S

2017-06-01

Physician-inventors are in a unique position to identify unserved patient needs, and innovate solutions to clinical problems. These solutions may also have associated commercial opportunities. The logistics of developing these medical products, however, can seem a daunting task. One of the primary barriers in the United States is the regulatory process of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In this article, we will explore the risk-based approach used by the FDA which forms a framework to consider the regulatory pathway and the process to gain regulatory clearance or approval for medical devices. Inherent device properties and the procedural risk of the devices will determine the rigor with which they are scrutinized by FDA, and the evidentiary requirements to legally market them. Data and evidentiary development will vary depending on risk and regulatory precedent and may or may not require clinical data This regulatory paradigm will determine into which risk-based device class they fit, and whether they are regulated under the 510(k) or premarket approval application pathways. The FDA, although gatekeeper of the US market and tasked with determining which products are safe and effective, can be a powerful ally for product development. They have significant scientific and medical expertise, and mechanisms to both provide guidance, and also to consider novel approaches to product development and evidence development. Early interaction for routine and novel products alike can result in expedited and efficient development. This collaborative approach can be best practice to most expeditiously develop the next generation of products, getting them into the hands of US doctors and into the treatment of US patients. Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Recommendations to minimize diagnostic nuclear medicine exposure to the embryo, fetus, and infant; availability of final recommendations--FDA. Notice.

PubMed

1986-02-19

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of final recommendations to minimize diagnostic nuclear medicine exposure to the embryo, fetus, and breastfeeding infant. The final recommendations, prepared by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), include the agency's rationale for the recommendations as well as the endorsement of the recommendations by several professional organizations. The final recommendations are being published in a pamphlet that is being made available to interested persons.

21 CFR 810.13 - Mandatory recall order.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... and Drugs FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE RECALL AUTHORITY Mandatory Medical Device Recall Procedures § 810.13 Mandatory... § 810.12, FDA determines that the order should be amended to require a recall of the device with respect...

21 CFR 810.13 - Mandatory recall order.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... and Drugs FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE RECALL AUTHORITY Mandatory Medical Device Recall Procedures § 810.13 Mandatory... § 810.12, FDA determines that the order should be amended to require a recall of the device with respect...

77 FR 26769 - Educational Forum on Medical Device Reporting, Complaint Files, and Recalls, Corrections, and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-05-07

...] Educational Forum on Medical Device Reporting, Complaint Files, and Recalls, Corrections, and Removals; Public...), in collaboration with the FDA Medical Device Industry Coalition (FMDIC), is announcing a public workshop entitled ``Educational Forum on Medical Device Reporting, Complaint Files, and Recalls...

77 FR 14272 - Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Norovirus Serological...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-03-09

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 866 [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0165] Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Norovirus... AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES 0 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 866 continues to read as follows...

78 FR 11612 - Medical Devices; Pediatric Uses of Devices; Requirement for Submission of Information on...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-02-19

... information that will have been reviewed by the applicant during the course of its development of the device..., infants, children, adolescents) that suffer from the disease or condition that the device is intended to.... FDA-2009-N-0458] RIN 0910-AG29 Medical Devices; Pediatric Uses of Devices; Requirement for Submission...

Establishment of a public docket for medical device/radiological health policy statements and operating procedure guides--FDA. Notice.

PubMed

1993-07-27

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it is establishing a public docket for policy speeches, policy statements, and standard operating procedure guides pertaining to product evaluation and regulatory enforcement for its medical device and radiological health programs. The docket will operate on a 1-year trial basis and will serve both as a repository for critical policy documents generated by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and as a public display mechanism for access by representatives of the industry and other interested persons. This action is one element of an overall communications initiative to ensure uniform and timely access to important information.

Regulating (for the benefit of) future persons: a different perspective on the FDA's jurisdiction to regulate human reproductive cloning.

PubMed

Javitt, Gail H; Hudson, Kathy

2003-01-01

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken the position that human reproductive cloning falls within its regulatory jurisdiction. This position has been subject to criticism on both procedural and substantive grounds. Some have contended that the FDA has failed to follow administrative law principles in asserting its jurisdiction, while others claim the FDA is ill suited to the task of addressing the ethical and social implications of human cloning. This Article argues, that, notwithstanding these criticisms, the FDA could plausibly assert jurisdiction over human cloning as a form of human gene therapy, an area in which the FDA is already regarded as having primary regulatory authority. Such an assertion would require that the FDA's jurisdiction extend to products affecting future persons, i.e., those not yet born. This Article demonstrates, for the first time, that such jurisdiction was implicit in the enactment of the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and that the FDA has historically relied on such authority in promulgating regulations for drugs and devices.

Regulatory Considerations in the Design and Manufacturing of Implantable 3D‐Printed Medical Devices

PubMed Central

Morrison, Robert J.; Kashlan, Khaled N.; Flanangan, Colleen L.; Wright, Jeanne K.; Green, Glenn E.; Hollister, Scott J.

2015-01-01

Abstract Three‐dimensional (3D) printing, or additive manufacturing, technology has rapidly penetrated the medical device industry over the past several years, and innovative groups have harnessed it to create devices with unique composition, structure, and customizability. These distinctive capabilities afforded by 3D printing have introduced new regulatory challenges. The customizability of 3D‐printed devices introduces new complexities when drafting a design control model for FDA consideration of market approval. The customizability and unique build processes of 3D‐printed medical devices pose unique challenges in meeting regulatory standards related to the manufacturing quality assurance. Consistent material powder properties and optimal printing parameters such as build orientation and laser power must be addressed and communicated to the FDA to ensure a quality build. Postprinting considerations unique to 3D‐printed devices, such as cleaning, finishing and sterilization are also discussed. In this manuscript we illustrate how such regulatory hurdles can be navigated by discussing our experience with our group's 3D‐printed bioresorbable implantable device. PMID:26243449

77 FR 72924 - Taxable Medical Devices

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-12-07

... as devices by the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). In general, CBER licenses... designed to implant a particular orthopedic joint; (iv) testing and development products; and (v) product...

21 CFR 884.1185 - Endometrial washer.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... with negative pressure. This device is used to study endometrial cytology (cells). (b) Classification. Class II. The special controls for this device are: (1) FDA's: (i) “Use of International Organization...

77 FR 26292 - Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy Assessments: Social Science Methodologies to Assess Goals...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-05-03

... determine endpoints; questionnaire design and analyses; and presentation of survey results. To date, FDA has..., the workshop will invest considerable time in identifying best methodological practices for conducting... sample, sample size, question design, process, and endpoints. Panel 2 will focus on alternatives to...

Focus on Food Labeling. An FDA Consumer Special Report.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Food and Drug Administration (DHHS/PHS), Washington, DC.

This special issue is designed for those who want to know all they can about the new federal requirements for nutrition information on food labels. Nine articles are included. "Good Reading for Good Eating" (Paula Kurtzweil) addresses mandatory nutrition labeling, the nutrition panel, nutrient content and health claims, and ingredient…

78 FR 29757 - Request for Nominations for Voting Members on Public Advisory Panels or Committees

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-05-21

... physical sciences, biological and life sciences, food science, risk assessment, nutrition, food technology... science, food technology, pediatric development, or nanotechnology in food. Nominations will be accepted..., food science, nutrition, and other food-related health issues that the FDA considers of primary...

Medical devices; immunology and microbiology devices; classification of John Cunningham Virus serological reagents. Final order.

PubMed

2014-01-23

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying John Cunningham Virus (JCV) serological reagents into class II (special controls). The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

76 FR 22322 - Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Ovarian Adnexal Mass...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-04-21

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 866 [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0026] Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Ovarian Adnexal Mass Assessment Score Test System; Correction AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION...

75 FR 69447 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Devices...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-11-12

... serious adverse health consequences, (2) the device is intended to be implanted in the human body for more... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0555] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Medical Devices; Device...

77 FR 36951 - Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Reclassification of Implanted Blood Access Devices

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-06-20

... into class II (special controls). FDA is proposing this reclassification on its own initiative based on... categories (classes) of devices, reflecting the regulatory controls needed to provide reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness. The three categories of devices are class I (general controls), class II...

Factors Influencing the Decision to Proceed to Firmware Upgrades to Implanted Pacemakers for Cybersecurity Risk Mitigation.

PubMed

Saxon, Leslie A; Varma, Niraj; Epstein, Laurence M; Ganz, Leonard I; Epstein, Andrew E

2018-05-10

In August 2017, the first major recall for cybersecurity vulnerabilities in pacemakers capable of remote connectivity was released that impacted 465,000 United States patients. 1,2 The FDA approved a firmware update designed by the manufacturer of the devices as a remediation (Abbott , formally St. Jude Medical). The recall was in response to the public disclosure of vulnerability by an investment firm and produced in a lab environment that could allow an unauthorized party in close proximity to a patient to impact the performance of the device or modify device settings via radio frequency communication. 3 While an exploit has not occurred in a patient and requires a high degree of resources and skill to execute, if accomplished, it could pose a significant risk to device safety and essential performance and cause patient harm. The FDA defines this as an uncontrolled vulnerability. 2 The recall recommendations were coordinated between the FDA, the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT), a division of Homeland Security that responds to and coordinates disclosure of critical infrastructure cybersecurity vulnerabilities and Abbott. 1 All parties urged caution and shared decision making between patient and clinician as to whether to have the device firmware update, a process that requires a clinic visit to implement with a device programmer. The manufacturer bench tested the firmware update but the only prior experience with an implanted device firmware updates was a 2012 ICD firmware update that demonstrated a 0.197% risk of device back-up mode pacing after the upgrade was performed.

78 FR 17415 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-03-21

..., FDA-2012-M-1012 Bolton Medical Inc... Relay[supreg] September 21, 2012. Thoracic Stent-Graft with Plus........ Ovation Abdominal October 5, 2012. Stent Graft System. P120007, FDA-2012-M-1066 Gen-Probe, Inc........ Medtronic Vascular... Valiant[supreg] October 26, 2012. Thoracic Stent Graft with the Captivia Delivery...

76 FR 24495 - Reprocessing of Reusable Medical Devices; Public Workshop

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-05-02

... workshop will be held in the Great Room at the FDA White Oak Conference Center, Bldg. 31, Rm. 1503, 10903... requests to make oral presentations, as well as presentation materials, must be sent to the contact person... sterilization process, potentially resulting in HAIs or other adverse patient outcomes. FDA receives reports of...

21 CFR 803.21 - Where can I find the reporting codes for adverse events that I use with medical device reports?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... the coding manual from CDRH's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mdr/mdr-forms.html; and from the... Radiological Health, 1350 Piccard Dr., Rockville, MD 20850, FAX: 240-276-3151, or e-mail to [email protected]CDRH.FDA.GOV...

Medical Device Plug-and-Play (MD PnP) Interoperability Standardization Program Development

DTIC Science & Technology

2009-08-01

TATRC / DoD Sandy Weininger, FDA / CDRH ICE-PAC / Industry Tracy Rausch, DocBox Inc. Ken Fuchs, Draeger Medical Carl Wallroth, Draeger Medical...Systems (LSTAT) Paul Jones, FDA / CDRH Kamran Sayrafian-Pour, NIST © 2006-2009 a white paper from the MD PnP Program rev July 2009 Advancing

78 FR 27971 - Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-05-13

...] Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug...: Dental Products Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee. General Function of the Committee: To... regulatory classification for dental devices known as Endosseous Dental Implants (Blade-form), one of the...

FDA use of international standards in the premarket review process.

PubMed

Rechen, E; Barth, D J; Marlowe, D; Kroger, L

1998-01-01

"This is an exciting time," says Eric Rechen, policy analyst in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Office of Device Evaluation (ODE). "We're entering an era in which standards will have a more prominent role in the review of medical devices than ever before." During the past 10 years, there has been significant growth in the importance of standards in regulatory processes, as Donald J. Barth, regulatory staff manager for the Medical Products Group at Hewlett Packard Company, notes in setting the stage for discussion of the latest developments. Donald Marlowe, director of the FDA's Office of Science and Technology, and Rechen explain the use of standards in the regulatory review process as part of FDA efforts to ensure public safety in a time of shrinking agency resources. Marlowe discusses provisions of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 that allow manufacturers to submit a declaration of conformity to a standard to satisfy premarket review requirements. A guidance on the recognition and use of consensus standards, a list of recognized standards, and a list of frequently asked questions are available at the Web site of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at www.fda.gov/cdrh and via the AAMI Web site at www.aami.org. The information is also available by telephone via CDRH Facts on Demand at 800-899-0381. Rechen provides details about the two new approaches for premarket notifications available under the new 510(k) paradigm. Manufacturers may demonstrate substantial equivalence through special and abbreviated 510(k)s in addition to traditional 510(k)s. A copy of the new 510(k) paradigm is available at the AAMI and CDRH Web sites and through Facts on Demand. As the FDA and many manufacturers enter the new world of abbreviated and special 510(k)s, Larry Kroger, GE Medical Systems, provides his comments based on the 4 years of experience manufacturers of diagnostic x-ray products have had with simplified 510(k)s. A comparison of the European conformity assessment procedures with the new 510(k) paradigm will appear in an upcoming issue of BI&T.

Is It Really FDA Approved?

MedlinePlus

... has been demonstrated that the device is substantially equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device that does not require premarket approval. Devices that present a low risk of harm to the user (Class I) (for example non-powered breast pumps, elastic bandages, tongue depressors, and ...

Real-time interactive simulation: using touch panels, graphics tablets, and video-terminal keyboards

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Venhuizen, J.R.

1983-01-01

A Simulation Laboratory utilizing only digital computers for interactive computing must rely on CRT based graphics devices for output devices, and keyboards, graphics tablets, and touch panels, etc., for input devices. The devices all work well, with the combination of a CRT with a touch panel mounted on it as the most flexible combination of input/output devices for interactive simulation.

The Methodology of Clinical Studies Used by the FDA for Approval of High-Risk Orthopaedic Devices.

PubMed

Barker, Jordan P; Simon, Stephen D; Dubin, Jonathan

2017-05-03

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the methodology of clinical trials used by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine the safety and effectiveness of high-risk orthopaedic devices approved between 2001 and 2015. Utilizing the FDA's online public database, this systematic review audited study design and methodological variables intended to minimize bias and confounding. An additional analysis of blinding as well as the Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Nonpharmacological Trial (CLEAR NPT) was applied to the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of the 49 studies, 46 (94%) were prospective and 37 (76%) were randomized. Forty-seven (96%) of the studies were controlled in some form. Of 35 studies that reported it, blinding was utilized in 21 (60%), of which 8 (38%) were reported as single-blinded and 13 (62%) were reported as double-blinded. Of the 37 RCTs, outcome assessors were clearly blinded in 6 (16%), whereas 15 (41%) were deemed impossible to blind as implants could be readily discerned on imaging. When the CLEAR NPT was applied to the 37 RCTs, >70% of studies were deemed "unclear" in describing generation of allocation sequences, treatment allocation concealment, and adequate blinding of participants and outcome assessors. This study manifests the highly variable reporting and strength of clinical research methodology accepted by the FDA to approve high-risk orthopaedic devices.

21 CFR 803.42 - If I am an importer, what information must I submit in my individual adverse event reports?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING... preexisting medical conditions. (c) Device information (Form 3500A, Block D). You must submit the following... device code (refer to FDA MEDWATCH Medical Device Reporting Code Instructions); (11) Whether a report was...

21 CFR 803.42 - If I am an importer, what information must I submit in my individual adverse event reports?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING... preexisting medical conditions. (c) Device information (Form 3500A, Block D). You must submit the following... device code (refer to FDA MEDWATCH Medical Device Reporting Code Instructions); (11) Whether a report was...

Hematology and pathology devices; reclassification; restricted devices; OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing. Food and Drug Administration, HHS. Final rule.

PubMed

2000-04-07

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying over-the-counter (OTC) test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing from class III (premarket approval) into class I (general controls) and exempting them from premarket notification (510(k)) and current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements. FDA is also designating OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing as restricted devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) and establishing restrictions intended to assure consumers that: The underlying laboratory test(s) are accurate and reliable; the laboratory performing the test(s) has adequate expertise and competency; and the product has adequate labeling and methods of communicating test results to consumers. Finally, FDA is adding a conforming amendment to the existing classification regulation for specimen transport and storage containers to clarify that it does not apply to specimen transport and storage containers that are part of an OTC test sample collection system for the purpose of testing for the presence of drugs of abuse or their metabolites in a laboratory.

OpenFDA: an innovative platform providing access to a wealth of FDA's publicly available data.

PubMed

Kass-Hout, Taha A; Xu, Zhiheng; Mohebbi, Matthew; Nelsen, Hans; Baker, Adam; Levine, Jonathan; Johanson, Elaine; Bright, Roselie A

2016-05-01

The objective of openFDA is to facilitate access and use of big important Food and Drug Administration public datasets by developers, researchers, and the public through harmonization of data across disparate FDA datasets provided via application programming interfaces (APIs). Using cutting-edge technologies deployed on FDA's new public cloud computing infrastructure, openFDA provides open data for easier, faster (over 300 requests per second per process), and better access to FDA datasets; open source code and documentation shared on GitHub for open community contributions of examples, apps and ideas; and infrastructure that can be adopted for other public health big data challenges. Since its launch on June 2, 2014, openFDA has developed four APIs for drug and device adverse events, recall information for all FDA-regulated products, and drug labeling. There have been more than 20 million API calls (more than half from outside the United States), 6000 registered users, 20,000 connected Internet Protocol addresses, and dozens of new software (mobile or web) apps developed. A case study demonstrates a use of openFDA data to understand an apparent association of a drug with an adverse event. With easier and faster access to these datasets, consumers worldwide can learn more about FDA-regulated products. © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved.

21 CFR 878.3720 - Tracheal prosthesis.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... of the trachea or trachealbronchial tree. It may be unbranched or contain one or two branches. The... include a device delivery system. (b) Classification. Class II. The special control for this device is FDA...

21 CFR 878.3720 - Tracheal prosthesis.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... of the trachea or trachealbronchial tree. It may be unbranched or contain one or two branches. The... include a device delivery system. (b) Classification. Class II. The special control for this device is FDA...

21 CFR 878.3720 - Tracheal prosthesis.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... of the trachea or trachealbronchial tree. It may be unbranched or contain one or two branches. The... include a device delivery system. (b) Classification. Class II. The special control for this device is FDA...

21 CFR 814.82 - Postapproval requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... periodic reporting on the safety, effectiveness, and reliability of the device for its intended use. FDA... a device and in the advertising of any restricted device of warnings, hazards, or precautions... extent required for the medical welfare of the individual, to determine the safety or effectiveness of...

Current State of the Regulatory Trajectory for Whole Slide Imaging Devices in the USA

PubMed Central

Abels, Esther; Pantanowitz, Liron

2017-01-01

The regulatory field for digital pathology (DP) has advanced significantly. A major milestone was accomplished when the FDA allowed the first vendor to market their device for primary diagnostic use in the USA and published in the classification order that this device, and substantially equivalent devices of this generic type, should be classified into class II instead of class III as previously proposed. The Digital Pathology Association (DPA) regulatory task force had a major role in the accomplishment of getting the application request for Whole Slide Imaging (WSI) Systems recommended for a de novo. This article reviews the past and emerging regulatory environment of WSI for clinical use in the USA. A WSI system with integrated subsystems is defined in the context of medical device regulations. The FDA technical performance assessment guideline is also discussed as well as parameters involved in analytical testing and clinical studies to demonstrate that WSI devices are safe and effective for clinical use. PMID:28584684

Current State of the Regulatory Trajectory for Whole Slide Imaging Devices in the USA.

PubMed

Abels, Esther; Pantanowitz, Liron

2017-01-01

The regulatory field for digital pathology (DP) has advanced significantly. A major milestone was accomplished when the FDA allowed the first vendor to market their device for primary diagnostic use in the USA and published in the classification order that this device, and substantially equivalent devices of this generic type, should be classified into class II instead of class III as previously proposed. The Digital Pathology Association (DPA) regulatory task force had a major role in the accomplishment of getting the application request for Whole Slide Imaging (WSI) Systems recommended for a de novo . This article reviews the past and emerging regulatory environment of WSI for clinical use in the USA. A WSI system with integrated subsystems is defined in the context of medical device regulations. The FDA technical performance assessment guideline is also discussed as well as parameters involved in analytical testing and clinical studies to demonstrate that WSI devices are safe and effective for clinical use.

21 CFR 803.52 - If I am a manufacturer, what information must I submit in my individual adverse event reports?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING..., result, and conclusion codes) (refer to FDA MEDWATCH Medical Device Reporting Code Instructions); (7... the device was involved, nature of the problem, patient followup or required treatment, and any...

21 CFR 803.52 - If I am a manufacturer, what information must I submit in my individual adverse event reports?

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED) MEDICAL DEVICES MEDICAL DEVICE REPORTING..., result, and conclusion codes) (refer to FDA MEDWATCH Medical Device Reporting Code Instructions); (7... the device was involved, nature of the problem, patient followup or required treatment, and any...

21 CFR 870.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification of a device in... device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic... referenced in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. [52 FR 17735...

21 CFR 882.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification of a device in... device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic... referenced in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. [52 FR 17739...

21 CFR 886.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification of a device in... that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic device... in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. [52 FR 33355...

21 CFR 868.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification of a device in... device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic... referenced in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. [52 FR 17734...

21 CFR 888.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification of a device in... that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a surgical device) is... part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. [52 FR 33702, Sept. 4...

21 CFR 830.350 - Correction of information submitted to the Global Unique Device Identification Database.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

... Unique Device Identification Database. 830.350 Section 830.350 Food and Drugs FOOD AND DRUG... Global Unique Device Identification Database § 830.350 Correction of information submitted to the Global Unique Device Identification Database. (a) If FDA becomes aware that any information submitted to the...

75 FR 17143 - Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Medical Devices; Neurological...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-05

... Physical Medicine Device Guidance Documents; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION... controls guidance documents for 11 neurological and physical medicine devices. FDA has developed a draft... stimulator device achieves ``aesthetic effects through physical change to the structure of the body'' as well...

75 FR 875 - Guidance for Industry on New Contrast Imaging Indication Considerations for Devices and Approved...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-01-06

... imaging devices for use with imaging contrast agents or radiopharmaceuticals. FDA intends this guidance to..., for medical imaging devices for use with imaging contrast agents or radiopharmaceuticals. Further, the...] Guidance for Industry on New Contrast Imaging Indication Considerations for Devices and Approved Drug and...

77 FR 18828 - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Factors To Consider When Making...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-03-28

... Assistance, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New... CONTACT: For devices regulated by CDRH: Ruth Fischer, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and... search capability is available for all CDRH guidance documents at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices...

76 FR 16292 - Medical Devices; Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Classification of Ovarian Adnexal Mass...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-23

... test system into class II (special controls). The special control that will apply to these devices is the guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff; Class II Special Controls... devices into class II (special controls) because special controls, in addition to general controls, will...

76 FR 34845 - Medical Devices; Ear, Nose, and Throat Devices; Classification of the Wireless Air-Conduction...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-06-15

... control by other users with a similar medical device. Exposure to non-ionizing radiation Wireless... Administration (FDA) is classifying the wireless air-conduction hearing aid into class II (special controls). The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable...

78 FR 79300 - Cardiovascular Devices; Reclassification of Intra-Aortic Balloon and Control Systems for Acute...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-12-30

... balloon and control system (IABP) devices when indicated for acute coronary syndrome, cardiac and non... and non-cardiac surgery, or complications of heart failure. The special controls for this device are.... FDA-2013-N-0581] Cardiovascular Devices; Reclassification of Intra-Aortic Balloon and Control Systems...

FDA publishes conflict of interest rules for clinical trials. Food and Drug Administration.

PubMed

James, J S

1998-03-06

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published new rules defining conflict of interests between drug companies and medical researchers and clinicians. Certain financial arrangements will need to be disclosed, although the FDA estimates that only one to ten percent of pharmaceutical companies will need to submit disclosures for one or more of their investigators. The purpose of the new rule is to prevent bias in safety and efficacy studies of drugs and medical devices. The full rule is published in the Federal Register.

Working draft of the FDA GMP final rule (Part II).

PubMed

Donawa, M E

1995-11-01

Part I of this two-part series provided information on the proposed design control provisions of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) working draft of the final rule for new good manufacturing practice regulations for medical devices. The final rule could be published in April or May 1996. It would be in force 180 days after the date of publication. Design control requirements may become effective some months later. This article describes recommended modifications of three provisions that have been intensely discussed during recent FDA-sponsored public meetings.

Off-label use of medical products in radiation therapy: Summary of the Report of AAPM Task Group No. 121

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Thomadsen, Bruce R.; Thompson, Heaton H. II; Jani, Shirish K.

Medical products (devices, drugs, or biologics) contain information in their labeling regarding the manner in which the manufacturer has determined that the products can be used in a safe and effective manner. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medical products for use for these specific indications which are part of the medical product's labeling. When medical products are used in a manner not specified in the labeling, it is commonly referred to as off-label use. The practice of medicine allows for this off-label use to treat individual patients, but the ethical and legal implications for such unapproved use canmore » be confusing. Although the responsibility and, ultimately, the liability for off-label use often rests with the prescribing physician, medical physicists and others are also responsible for the safe and proper use of the medical products. When these products are used for purposes other than which they were approved, it is important for medical physicists to understand their responsibilities. In the United States, medical products can only be marketed if officially cleared, approved, or licensed by the FDA; they can be used if they are not subject to or specifically exempt from FDA regulations, or if they are being used in research with the appropriate regulatory safeguards. Medical devices are either cleared or approved by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Drugs are approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and biological products such as vaccines or blood are licensed under a biologics license agreement by FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. For the purpose of this report, the process by which the FDA eventually clears, approves, or licenses such products for marketing in the United States will be referred to as approval. This report summarizes the various ways medical products, primarily medical devices, can legally be brought to market in the United States, and includes a discussion of the approval process, along with manufacturers' responsibilities, labeling, marketing and promotion, and off-label use. This is an educational and descriptive report and does not contain prescriptive recommendations. This report addresses the role of the medical physicist in clinical situations involving off-label use. Case studies in radiation therapy are presented. Any mention of commercial products is for identification only; it does not imply recommendations or endorsements of any of the authors or the AAPM. The full report, containing extensive background on off-label use with several appendices, is available on the AAPM website (http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/).« less

Interactive display system having a digital micromirror imaging device

DOEpatents

Veligdan, James T.; DeSanto, Leonard; Kaull, Lisa; Brewster, Calvin

2006-04-11

A display system includes a waveguide optical panel having an inlet face and an opposite outlet face. A projector cooperates with a digital imaging device, e.g. a digital micromirror imaging device, for projecting an image through the panel for display on the outlet face. The imaging device includes an array of mirrors tiltable between opposite display and divert positions. The display positions reflect an image light beam from the projector through the panel for display on the outlet face. The divert positions divert the image light beam away from the panel, and are additionally used for reflecting a probe light beam through the panel toward the outlet face. Covering a spot on the panel, e.g. with a finger, reflects the probe light beam back through the panel toward the inlet face for detection thereat and providing interactive capability.

FDA preemption of drug and device labeling: who should decide what goes on a drug label?

PubMed

Valoir, Tamsen; Ghosh, Shubha

2011-01-01

The Supreme Court decided an issue that is critical to consumer health and safety last year. In April 2009, the Supreme Court held that extensive FDA regulation of drugs did not preempt a state law claim that an additional warning on the label was necessary to make the drug reasonably safe for use. Thus, states--and even courts and juries--are now free to cast their vote on what a drug label should say. This is in direct contrast to medical devices, where the federal statute regulating medical devices expressly provides that state regulations are preempted. This Article discusses basic preemption principles and drugs, and explores the policy ramifications of pro- and anti-preemption policy in the healthcare industry.

A pragmatic analysis of the regulation of consumer transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) devices in the United States

PubMed Central

2015-01-01

Several recent articles have called for the regulation of consumer transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) devices, which provide low levels of electrical current to the brain. However, most of the discussion to-date has focused on ethical or normative considerations; there has been a notable absence of scholarship regarding the actual legal framework in the United States. This article aims to fill that gap by providing a pragmatic analysis of the consumer tDCS market and relevant laws and regulations. In the five main sections of this manuscript, I take into account (a) the history of the do-it-yourself tDCS movement and the subsequent emergence of direct-to-consumer devices; (b) the statutory language of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and how the definition of a medical device—which focuses on the intended use of the device rather than its mechanism of action—is of paramount importance for discussions of consumer tDCS device regulation; (c) how both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and courts have understood the FDA's jurisdiction over medical devices in cases where the meaning of ‘intended use’ has been challenged; (d) an analysis of consumer tDCS regulatory enforcement action to-date; and (e) the multiple US authorities, other than the FDA, that can regulate consumer brain stimulation devices. Taken together, this paper demonstrates that rather than a ‘regulatory gap,’ there are multiple, distinct pathways by which consumer tDCS can be regulated in the United States. PMID:27774217

Guide to preemption of state-law claims against Class III PMA medical devices.

PubMed

Whitney, Daniel W

2010-01-01

There is a perception that the express preemption holding of the Supreme Court in Riegel v. Medtronic, 552 U.S. 312(2008), immunizes medical device manufacturers from common law personal injury actions involving Class III devices that received FDA clearance under a premarket approval application (PMA). In the aftermath of Riegel, many lawsuits involving Class III PMA devices have been dismissed by district courts applying the new heightened pleading standard of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Other lawsuits involving Class III PMA devices premised on fraud-on-FDA have been dismissed based on the implied preemption holding of the Supreme Court in Buckman v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001). When these decisions are carefully analyzed together with Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (1996), which found no preemption regarding a Class III device receiving FDA clearance through the 510(k) mechanism, it is apparent that the preemption defense does not apply universally to Class III PMA devices. The overall methodology for framing a non-preempted claim is to first identify conduct which violated the PMA or other specific requirements related to safety or efficacy. If such conduct can also be stated in terms of a breach of a parallel common law duty (e.g, failure to warn under strict liability or negligence, manufacturing defect or breach of warranty), then it would appear the claim is not preempted. Alternatively, regardless of a specific violation, common law remedies are not preempted by general CGMP requirements.

75 FR 4402 - Strengthening the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's 510(k) Review Process; Public...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-01-27

..., clinical studies conducted to demonstrate superiority to a control, instead of non- inferiority to a... will include no more than 10 non-FDA participants. Only one participant from an organization or company will be assigned to the discussion group. FDA will attempt to have a range of constituencies...

PRN Notice 94-4: Interim Measures for the Registration of Antimicrobial Products/Liquid Chemical Germicides with Medical Device Use Claims Under the Memorandum of Understanding Between EPA and FDA

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

This Notice is intended to provide the regulated community with detailed guidance on the interim EPA registration procedures for antimicrobial products affected by the June 4, 1993, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and FDA.

76 FR 47210 - Medical Devices; Availability of Safety and Effectiveness Summaries for Premarket Approval...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-08-04

.......... Medtronic Vascular.... Valiant thoracic stent graft April 1, 2011. system. H100002 FDA-2011-M-0241... Scientific Corp ION paclitaxel-eluting coronary April 22, 2011. stent system (monorail and over- the-wire..., 2011. toric IOL. P040012 (S34) FDA-2011-M-0343. Abbott Vascular, Inc.. RX Acculink carotid stent system...

21 CFR 99.203 - Request to extend the time for completing planned studies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 1 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false Request to extend the time for completing planned... DEVICES Manufacturer's Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.203 Request to extend the time for... FDA under § 99.201, that FDA extend the 36-month time period for completing the studies and submitting...

21 CFR 99.203 - Request to extend the time for completing planned studies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 1 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false Request to extend the time for completing planned... DEVICES Manufacturer's Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.203 Request to extend the time for... FDA under § 99.201, that FDA extend the 36-month time period for completing the studies and submitting...

21 CFR 99.203 - Request to extend the time for completing planned studies.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 1 2012-04-01 2012-04-01 false Request to extend the time for completing planned... DEVICES Manufacturer's Submissions, Requests, and Applications § 99.203 Request to extend the time for... FDA under § 99.201, that FDA extend the 36-month time period for completing the studies and submitting...

The first FDA marketing authorizations of next-generation sequencing technology and tests: challenges, solutions and impact for future assays.

PubMed

Bijwaard, Karen; Dickey, Jennifer S; Kelm, Kellie; Težak, Živana

2015-01-01

The rapid emergence and clinical translation of novel high-throughput sequencing technologies created a need to clarify the regulatory pathway for the evaluation and authorization of these unique technologies. Recently, the US FDA authorized for marketing four next generation sequencing (NGS)-based diagnostic devices which consisted of two heritable disease-specific assays, library preparation reagents and a NGS platform that are intended for human germline targeted sequencing from whole blood. These first authorizations can serve as a case study in how different types of NGS-based technology are reviewed by the FDA. In this manuscript we describe challenges associated with the evaluation of these novel technologies and provide an overview of what was reviewed. Besides making validated NGS-based devices available for in vitro diagnostic use, these first authorizations create a regulatory path for similar future instruments and assays.

75 FR 15714 - Voting and Nonvoting Consumer Representative Members on Public Advisory Committees and Panels...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-03-30

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001... Public Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. The Food and... consumer interests on how to participate in the nomination and selection process for members representing...

Towards a Computational Analysis of Status and Leadership Styles on FDA Panels

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Broniatowski, David A.; Magee, Christopher L.

Decisions by committees of technical experts are increasingly impacting society. These decision-makers are typically embedded within a web of social relations. Taken as a whole, these relations define an implicit social structure which can influence the decision outcome. Aspects of this structure are founded on interpersonal affinity between parties to the negotiation, on assigned roles, and on the recognition of status characteristics, such as relevant domain expertise. This paper build upon a methodology aimed at extracting an explicit representation of such social structures using meeting transcripts as a data source. Whereas earlier results demonstrated that the method presented here can identify groups of decision-makers with a contextual affinity (i.e., membership in a given medical specialty or voting clique), we now can extract meaningful status hierarchies, and can identify differing facilitation styles among committee chairs. Use of this method is demonstrated on the transcripts of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panel meeting transcripts; nevertheless, the approach presented here is extensible to other domains and requires only a meeting transcript as input.

78 FR 12068 - Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-02-21

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0001] Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY: Food and Drug... Committee: Device Good Manufacturing Practice Advisory Committee. General Function of the Committee: To...

77 FR 13343 - Pilot Program for Early Feasibility Study Investigational Device Exemption Applications...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-03-06

...] Pilot Program for Early Feasibility Study Investigational Device Exemption Applications; Termination of... acceptance of nominations for the Early Feasibility Study Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) Applications... technologies to participate in a pilot program for early feasibility study IDE applications. FDA is also...

76 FR 17657 - Medical Device Epidemiology Network 2011: Second Annual Public Workshop

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-30

...] Medical Device Epidemiology Network 2011: Second Annual Public Workshop AGENCY: Food and Drug... public workshop entitled ``Medical Device Epidemiology Network (MDEpiNet) 2011: Second Annual Public... and solicit feedback on the establishment of a network that works with FDA experts to determine the...

78 FR 33849 - Battery-Powered Medical Devices Workshop: Challenges and Opportunities; Public Workshop; Request...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-06-05

...] Battery-Powered Medical Devices Workshop: Challenges and Opportunities; Public Workshop; Request for.... The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the following public workshop entitled ``Battery... create awareness of the challenges related to battery-powered medical devices and collaboratively develop...

Analytical validation considerations of multiplex mass-spectrometry-based proteomic platforms for measuring protein biomarkers.

PubMed

Boja, Emily S; Fehniger, Thomas E; Baker, Mark S; Marko-Varga, György; Rodriguez, Henry

2014-12-05

Protein biomarker discovery and validation in current omics era are vital for healthcare professionals to improve diagnosis, detect cancers at an early stage, identify the likelihood of cancer recurrence, stratify stages with differential survival outcomes, and monitor therapeutic responses. The success of such biomarkers would have a huge impact on how we improve the diagnosis and treatment of patients and alleviate the financial burden of healthcare systems. In the past, the genomics community (mostly through large-scale, deep genomic sequencing technologies) has been steadily improving our understanding of the molecular basis of disease, with a number of biomarker panels already authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for clinical use (e.g., MammaPrint, two recently cleared devices using next-generation sequencing platforms to detect DNA changes in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) gene). Clinical proteomics, on the other hand, albeit its ability to delineate the functional units of a cell, more likely driving the phenotypic differences of a disease (i.e., proteins and protein-protein interaction networks and signaling pathways underlying the disease), "staggers" to make a significant impact with only an average ∼ 1.5 protein biomarkers per year approved by the FDA over the past 15-20 years. This statistic itself raises the concern that major roadblocks have been impeding an efficient transition of protein marker candidates in biomarker development despite major technological advances in proteomics in recent years.

42 CFR 405.753 - Appeal of a categorization of a device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Appeal of a categorization of a device. 405.753... Under Medicare Part A § 405.753 Appeal of a categorization of a device. (a) CMS's acceptance of the FDA categorization of a device as an experimental/investigational (Category A) device under § 405.203 is a national...

42 CFR 405.877 - Appeal of a categorization of a device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Appeal of a categorization of a device. 405.877... Part B Program § 405.877 Appeal of a categorization of a device. (a) CMS's acceptance of the FDA categorization of a device as an experimental/investigational (Category A) device under § 405.203 is a national...

42 CFR 405.877 - Appeal of a categorization of a device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2011-10-01 2011-10-01 false Appeal of a categorization of a device. 405.877... Part B Program § 405.877 Appeal of a categorization of a device. (a) CMS's acceptance of the FDA categorization of a device as an experimental/investigational (Category A) device under § 405.203 is a national...

42 CFR 405.753 - Appeal of a categorization of a device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... 42 Public Health 2 2010-10-01 2010-10-01 false Appeal of a categorization of a device. 405.753... Under Medicare Part A § 405.753 Appeal of a categorization of a device. (a) CMS's acceptance of the FDA categorization of a device as an experimental/investigational (Category A) device under § 405.203 is a national...

Your business in court and at Federal agencies: 2011-2012.

PubMed

Reiss, John B; Crowder, Dawn; McCabe, Brittany; DeFeo, Marisa; Rifin, Marta; Talbot, Meghan

2013-01-01

FDA transparency effort continued, including the Secretary's adopting eight measures to improve access to Agency information and activities. A continuing problem was shortages of prescription drugs, which probably was enhanced by increased manufacturing recalls. FDA issued more device Guidances for regulatory clarity. Enforcement involving drugs and devices increased, including GMP and GLP enforcement and surveillance of internet claims. The Supreme Court decided generic drug manufacturers may cause the FDA to revise incorrectly listed use codes, and pharmaceutical detailers may not receive overtime payments. FDA initiated implementation of the Food Safety and Modernization Act, including two pilot tracking systems for supply chain tracing and to determine how quickly data can be gathered. The Agency issued guidance for new dietary supplements. FDA failed to impose graphic labeling requirements on the tobacco industry, but established it can regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco. The Agency issued guidelines for the use of nanomaterials in cosmetics, and reviewed the effectiveness of sunscreen products. FDA is being given more authority over larger areas of the U.S. economy, but its resources are not increased proportionately. The pharmaceutical industry made major payments for alleged violations of the Drug Rebate Statute, Anti-Kickback Statute, Wholesale Price and Off-Label Use prohibitions. The government continues using the Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine to make company managers responsible for corporate conduct about which they had no knowledge. Companies should have a robust compliance program in effect. The FTC and the SEC continue their oversight activities, including SEC's enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The defense of product liability litigation continues grappling with federal preemption of state laws.

Retrospective review of the performance standard for diagnostic x-ray equipment; availability of report--FDA. Notice; final rule-related.

PubMed

1985-11-12

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a report prepared by the X-Ray Standard Review Group (XSRG) in FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The report contains the review group's assessment of the performance standard for diagnostic x-ray systems and their major components. It contains recommendations for changes in the standard with respect to the need to ensure that regulatory controls keep pace with developing technology and the needs of the radiological community. In addition, FDA is inviting interested persons to submit written comments, data, or information regarding the report for the agency's consideration in deciding whether to initiate any changes in the performance standard.

MO-F-16A-08: Have An Impact On More Patients From Your Ideas And Inventions

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Morton, R

Purpose: To inform physicists how to obtain an FDA 510(k) clearance for the innovations they use in their facility and to make those ideas widely available to patients throughout the U.S. Methods: Give advice from 20 years experience of assisting in well over 100 successful 510(k) clearances. Results: Learn how to develop a 510(k) submission. Conclusion: Many physicists, physicians and radiation therapists have developed innovations that that are helpful to the patients in their institution. But, many of these innovations deserve to be made available to patients throughout the United States. The author, a Certified Radiological Physicist and former FDAmore » employee, has consulted for over twenty years for inventors, start-ups and established medical device manufacturers to bring new devices to market in the U.S. and to assist them to established FDA compliant quality systems for manufacturing. In this presentation the audience will learn the important points for deciding to go forward with obtaining a Premarket Notification clearance [also known as a 510(k) clearance] to legally market a medical device in the United States. The FDA has published guidelines for submitting a 510(k) application. However, the methods used to efficiently develop the documentation for submission and to obtain clearance in the shortest possible time comes from the author's experience in assisting well over one hundred successful 510(k) clearances.Whether you want to start your own company or to market your idea to an established medical device manufacturer, the value of your innovation increases with a documented 510(k) clearance from FDA.« less

[Consideration of Mobile Medical Device Regulation].

PubMed

Peng, Liang; Yang, Pengfei; He, Weigang

2015-07-01

The regulation of mobile medical devices is one of the hot topics in the industry now. The definition, regulation scope and requirements, potential risks of mobile medical devices were analyzed and discussed based on mobile computing techniques and the FDA guidance of mobile medical applications. The regulation work of mobile medical devices in China needs to adopt the risk-based method.

75 FR 18219 - Drug and Medical Device Forum on Food and Drug Administration Drug and Device Requirements and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-09

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0142] Drug and Medical Device Forum on Food and Drug Administration Drug and Device Requirements and Supplier Controls; Public Educational Forum AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice of public...

75 FR 20854 - Medical Device Use in the Home Environment: Implications for the Safe and Effective Use of...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-21

...] Medical Device Use in the Home Environment: Implications for the Safe and Effective Use of Medical Device... related to the safe and effective use of medical device technology in the home environment. The workshop... the home environment. FDA will solicit feedback on: 1. The agency's current working definition of...

21 CFR 812.36 - Treatment use of an investigational device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false Treatment use of an investigational device. 812.36 Section 812.36 Food and Drugs FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES..., “treatment use”of a device includes the use of a device for diagnostic purposes. (b) Criteria. FDA shall...

21 CFR 814.19 - Product development protocol (PDP).

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2011-04-01 2011-04-01 false Product development protocol (PDP). 814.19 Section...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES General § 814.19 Product development protocol (PDP). A class III device for which a product development protocol has been declared completed by FDA under...

21 CFR 814.19 - Product development protocol (PDP).

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false Product development protocol (PDP). 814.19 Section...) MEDICAL DEVICES PREMARKET APPROVAL OF MEDICAL DEVICES General § 814.19 Product development protocol (PDP). A class III device for which a product development protocol has been declared completed by FDA under...

21 CFR 874.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

..., and throat devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification..., nose, and throat device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and...) Guidance documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh...

78 FR 58785 - Unique Device Identification System

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-09-24

... to submitting a report. It will allow FDA, health care providers, and industry to more rapidly...-sustaining. Under the UDI system established by this rule, the health care community and the public will be... with any similar device which might lead to misuse of the device. Health care providers will no longer...

75 FR 44267 - Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Medical Devices; Neurological...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-07-28

... Physical Medicine Device Guidance Document; Reopening of Comment Period AGENCY: Food and Drug... for 11 neurological and physical medicine devices. FDA is reopening the comment period to allow... announcing the availability of draft special controls guidance documents for 11 neurological and physical...

78 FR 66940 - Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products; Draft...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-11-07

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-D-1295] Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products; Draft Guidance for... draft guidance entitled ``Regulatory Requirements for Hearing Aid Devices and Personal Sound...

Hearing Aids and Personal Sound Amplifiers: Know the Difference

MedlinePlus

... Devices and Personal Sound Amplification Products - Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff (PDF - 42KB) More in Consumer Updates Animal & Veterinary Children's Health Cosmetics Dietary Supplements Drugs Food Medical Devices Nutrition Radiation-Emitting Products Tobacco Products ...

76 FR 43582 - Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of Electrocardiograph Electrodes

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-21

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 870 [Docket No. FDA-2007-N-0092] (Formerly Docket No. 2007N-0308) Cardiovascular Devices; Classification of... amended as follows: [[Page 43585

78 FR 23508 - Use of Certain Symbols in Labeling

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-19

... English language* * *'' (Sec. 801.15(c)(1)). The regulation goes on to allow for use of foreign language... 809 [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0125] RIN 0910-AG74 Use of Certain Symbols in Labeling AGENCY: Food and... standardized symbol is part of a standard recognized by FDA for use on the labeling of medical devices (or on a...

High energy devices versus low energy devices in orthopedics treatment modalities

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Schultheiss, Reiner

2003-10-01

The orthopedic consensus group defined in 1997 the 42 most likely relevant parameters of orthopedic shock wave devices. The idea of this approach was to correlate the different clinical outcomes with the physical properties of the different devices with respect to their acoustical waves. Several changes in the hypothesis of the dose effect relationship have been noticed since the first orthopedic treatments. The relation started with the maximum pressure p+, followed by the total energy, the energy density; and finally the single treatment approach using high, and then the multiple treatment method using low energy. Motivated by the reimbursement situation in Germany some manufacturers began to redefine high and low energy devices independent of the treatment modality. The OssaTron as a high energy, single treatment electro hydraulic device gained FDA approval as the first orthopedic ESWT device for plantar fasciitis and, more recently, for lateral epicondylitis. Two low energy devices have now also gained FDA approval based upon a single treatment. Comparing the acoustic data, differences between the OssaTron and the other devices are obvious and will be elaborated upon. Cluster analysis of the outcomes and the acoustical data are presented and new concepts will be suggested.

Medical devices; reclassification of the topical oxygen chamber for extremities. Final rule.

PubMed

2011-04-25

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reclassifying the topical oxygen chamber for extremities (TOCE) from class III to class II. This device is intended to surround a patient's limb and apply humidified oxygen topically at a pressure slightly greater than atmospheric pressure to aid healing of chronic skin ulcers, such as bedsores. This reclassification is on the Secretary of Health and Human Services's own initiative based on new information. This action is being taken under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) as amended by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (the 1976 Amendments), the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990 (the SMDA), and the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is announcing the availability of the guidance document entitled ``Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Topical Oxygen Chamber for Extremities,'' which will serve as the special control for this device.

What we know and don't know about the bioeffects of nanoparticles: developing experimental approaches for safety assessment.

PubMed

Stratmeyer, Mel E; Goering, Peter L; Hitchins, Victoria M; Umbreit, Thomas H

2010-08-01

The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates nano-based medical products and therefore is required to address the safety and biological effects of nano-scale materials used in these products. Both in vitro and in vivo toxicological research studies are being conducted at the FDA to help determine the risks versus benefits of these new products. This article will briefly summarize some of the initial research findings from FDA-CDRH studies using TiO(2), polystyrene, and silicon nanoparticles.

Evaluation of radiation exposure from diagnostic radiology examination; availability of final recommendations--FDA. Notice.

PubMed

1986-02-19

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a document entitled "Recommendations for Evaluation of Radiation Exposure from Diagnostic Radiology Examinations". The recommendations, prepared by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), encourage diagnostic radiology facilities to take voluntary action to: Become aware of the radiation levels experienced by patients undergoing the projections commonly given in the facility; compare their radiation levels to generally accepted levels for these projections; and bring the exposures back into line if their levels fall consistently outside these generally accepted levels.

75 FR 18514 - Developing Guidance on Naming, Labeling, and Packaging Practices to Reduce Medication Errors...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-04-12

..., layout, use of color, use of graphics, and costs associated with designing labels. Panel 1 will address... from the general public about the design of drug and therapeutic biologic container labels, carton... packaging designs. Among these measures, FDA agreed that by the end of FY 2010, after public consultation...

Comparing Food Label Experiments Using Samples from Web Panels versus Mall Intercepts

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chang, LinChiat; Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan

2015-01-01

To regulate health messages on food labels, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) traditionally relied on mall intercepts to collect consumer data. In recent years, web surveys have presented a viable alternative for presenting visual stimuli with more control and efficiency in data collection. However, there is a paucity of empirical data…

Demise of Polymerase Chain Reaction/Electrospray Ionization-Mass Spectrometry as an Infectious Diseases Diagnostic Tool.

PubMed

Özenci, Volkan; Patel, Robin; Ullberg, Måns; Strålin, Kristoffer

2018-01-18

Although there are several US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved/cleared molecular microbiology diagnostics for direct analysis of patient samples, all are single target or panel-based tests. There is no FDA-approved/cleared diagnostic for broad microbial detection. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)/electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry (PCR/ESI-MS), commercialized as the IRIDICA system (Abbott) and formerly PLEX-ID, had been under development for over a decade and had become CE-marked and commercially available in Europe in 2014. Capable of detecting a large number of microorganisms, it was under review at the FDA when, in April 2017, Abbott discontinued it. This turn of events represents not only the loss of a potential diagnostic tool for infectious diseases but may be a harbinger of similar situations with other emerging and expensive microbial diagnostics, especially genomic tests. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Flat panel ferroelectric electron emission display system

DOEpatents

Sampayan, Stephen E.; Orvis, William J.; Caporaso, George J.; Wieskamp, Ted F.

1996-01-01

A device which can produce a bright, raster scanned or non-raster scanned image from a flat panel. Unlike many flat panel technologies, this device does not require ambient light or auxiliary illumination for viewing the image. Rather, this device relies on electrons emitted from a ferroelectric emitter impinging on a phosphor. This device takes advantage of a new electron emitter technology which emits electrons with significant kinetic energy and beam current density.

OpenFDA: an innovative platform providing access to a wealth of FDA’s publicly available data

PubMed Central

Kass-Hout, Taha A; Mohebbi, Matthew; Nelsen, Hans; Baker, Adam; Levine, Jonathan; Johanson, Elaine; Bright, Roselie A

2016-01-01

Objective The objective of openFDA is to facilitate access and use of big important Food and Drug Administration public datasets by developers, researchers, and the public through harmonization of data across disparate FDA datasets provided via application programming interfaces (APIs). Materials and Methods Using cutting-edge technologies deployed on FDA’s new public cloud computing infrastructure, openFDA provides open data for easier, faster (over 300 requests per second per process), and better access to FDA datasets; open source code and documentation shared on GitHub for open community contributions of examples, apps and ideas; and infrastructure that can be adopted for other public health big data challenges. Results Since its launch on June 2, 2014, openFDA has developed four APIs for drug and device adverse events, recall information for all FDA-regulated products, and drug labeling. There have been more than 20 million API calls (more than half from outside the United States), 6000 registered users, 20,000 connected Internet Protocol addresses, and dozens of new software (mobile or web) apps developed. A case study demonstrates a use of openFDA data to understand an apparent association of a drug with an adverse event. Conclusion With easier and faster access to these datasets, consumers worldwide can learn more about FDA-regulated products. PMID:26644398

Heat exchanger panel

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Warburton, Robert E. (Inventor); Cuva, William J. (Inventor)

2005-01-01

The present invention relates to a heat exchanger panel which has broad utility in high temperature environments. The heat exchanger panel has a first panel, a second panel, and at least one fluid containment device positioned intermediate the first and second panels. At least one of the first panel and the second panel have at least one feature on an interior surface to accommodate the at least one fluid containment device. In a preferred embodiment, each of the first and second panels is formed from a high conductivity, high temperature composite material. Also, in a preferred embodiment, the first and second panels are joined together by one or more composite fasteners.

21 CFR 872.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification of a device in a regulation... types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic device) is listed in one... on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh.guidance.html. [52 FR 30097, Aug. 12, 1987, as amended at...

21 CFR 876.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... gastroenterology-urology devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification... gastroenterology-urology device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a... documents referenced in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html...

21 CFR 890.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... medicine devices intended for human use that are in commercial distribution. (b) The identification of a... device that has two or more types of uses (e.g., used both as a diagnostic device and as a therapeutic... referenced in this part are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/guidance.html. [52 FR 17741...

75 FR 59670 - Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of the Herpes Simplex Virus Serological...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-09-28

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 866 [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0429] Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of the Herpes Simplex Virus... proposed that 21 CFR part 866 be amended as follows: PART 866--IMMUNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES 1. The...

76 FR 48715 - Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of the Herpes Simplex Virus Serological...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-08-09

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 866 [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0429] Immunology and Microbiology Devices; Reclassification of the Herpes Simplex Virus... CFR part 866 is amended as follows: PART 866--IMMUNOLOGY AND MICROBIOLOGY DEVICES 0 1. The authority...

78 FR 53151 - The Applicability of Good Laboratory Practice in Premarket Device Submissions: Questions and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-08-28

... research and marketing applications for medical devices. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in... FDA-regulated products (21 CFR 58.1). The draft guidance provides clarification on GLP terminology, the types of medical device research or marketing applications that are subject to the GLP regulation...

Evidentiary Support in Public Comments to the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.

PubMed

Hemmerich, Natalie; Klein, Elizabeth G; Berman, Micah

2017-08-01

Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS) were introduced into the US market in 2007, and until recently these devices were unregulated at the federal level. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asserting its intention to regulate ENDS and requesting public comments on numerous related issues, including potential limits on the sale of flavored ENDS. This article analyzes key comments submitted to the FDA on the issue of flavor regulation in ENDS and examines the weight and credibility of the evidence presented by both supporters and opponents of regulation. It also describes the final deeming rule, published in May 2016, and the FDA's response to the evidence submitted. This is the first study to examine public comments submitted to the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, and it concludes that opponents of regulation were more likely to rely on sources that were not peer reviewed and that were affected by conflicts of interest. In light of these findings, the FDA and the research community should develop processes to carefully and critically analyze public comments submitted to the FDA on issues of tobacco regulation. Copyright © 2017 by Duke University Press.

Machines that Go 'Ping': Medical Technology and Health Expenditures in OECD Countries.

PubMed

Willemé, Peter; Dumont, Michel

2015-08-01

Technology is believed to be a major determinant of increasing health spending. The main difficulty to quantify its effect is to find suitable proxies to measure medical technological innovation. This paper's main contribution is the use of data on approved medical devices and drugs to proxy for medical technology. The effects of these variables on total real per capita health spending are estimated using a panel model for 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries covering the period 1981-2012. The results confirm the substantial cost-increasing effect of medical technology, which accounts for almost 50% of the explained historical growth of spending. Despite the overall net positive effect of technology, the effect of two subgroups of approvals on expenditure is significantly negative. These subgroups can be thought of as representing 'incremental medical innovation', whereas the positive effects are related to radically innovative pharmaceutical products and devices. A separate time series model was estimated for the USA because the FDA approval data in fact only apply to the USA, while they serve as proxies for the other OECD countries. Our empirical model includes an indicator of obesity, and estimations confirm the substantial contribution of this lifestyle variable to health spending growth in the countries studied. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

An Objective Approach for Burkholderia pseudomallei Strain Selection as Challenge Material for Medical Countermeasures Efficacy Testing

PubMed Central

Van Zandt, Kristopher E.; Tuanyok, Apichai; Keim, Paul S.; Warren, Richard L.; Gelhaus, H. Carl

2012-01-01

Burkholderia pseudomallei is the causative agent of melioidosis, a rare disease of biodefense concern with high mortality and extreme difficulty in treatment. No human vaccines are available that protect against B. pseudomallei infection, and with the current limitations of antibiotic treatment, the development of new preventative and therapeutic interventions is crucial. Although clinical trials could be used to test the efficacy of new medical countermeasures (MCMs), the high mortality rates associated with melioidosis raises significant ethical issues concerning treating individuals with new compounds with unknown efficacies. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has formulated a set of guidelines for the licensure of new MCMs to treat diseases in which it would be unethical to test the efficacy of these drugs in humans. The FDA “Animal Rule” 21 CFR 314 calls for consistent, well-characterized B. pseudomallei strains to be used as challenge material in animal models. In order to facilitate the efficacy testing of new MCMs for melioidosis using animal models, we intend to develop a well-characterized panel of strains for use. This panel will comprise of strains that were isolated from human cases, have a low passage history, are virulent in animal models, and are well-characterized phenotypically and genotypically. We have reviewed published and unpublished data on various B. pseudomallei strains to establish an objective method for selecting the strains to be included in the panel of B. pseudomallei strains with attention to five categories: animal infection models, genetic characterization, clinical and passage history, and availability of the strain to the research community. We identified 109 strains with data in at least one of the five categories, scored each strain based on the gathered data and identified six strains as candidate for a B. pseudomallei strain panel. PMID:23057010

An objective approach for Burkholderia pseudomallei strain selection as challenge material for medical countermeasures efficacy testing.

PubMed

Van Zandt, Kristopher E; Tuanyok, Apichai; Keim, Paul S; Warren, Richard L; Gelhaus, H Carl

2012-01-01

Burkholderia pseudomallei is the causative agent of melioidosis, a rare disease of biodefense concern with high mortality and extreme difficulty in treatment. No human vaccines are available that protect against B. pseudomallei infection, and with the current limitations of antibiotic treatment, the development of new preventative and therapeutic interventions is crucial. Although clinical trials could be used to test the efficacy of new medical countermeasures (MCMs), the high mortality rates associated with melioidosis raises significant ethical issues concerning treating individuals with new compounds with unknown efficacies. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has formulated a set of guidelines for the licensure of new MCMs to treat diseases in which it would be unethical to test the efficacy of these drugs in humans. The FDA "Animal Rule" 21 CFR 314 calls for consistent, well-characterized B. pseudomallei strains to be used as challenge material in animal models. In order to facilitate the efficacy testing of new MCMs for melioidosis using animal models, we intend to develop a well-characterized panel of strains for use. This panel will comprise of strains that were isolated from human cases, have a low passage history, are virulent in animal models, and are well-characterized phenotypically and genotypically. We have reviewed published and unpublished data on various B. pseudomallei strains to establish an objective method for selecting the strains to be included in the panel of B. pseudomallei strains with attention to five categories: animal infection models, genetic characterization, clinical and passage history, and availability of the strain to the research community. We identified 109 strains with data in at least one of the five categories, scored each strain based on the gathered data and identified six strains as candidate for a B. pseudomallei strain panel.

ADHD medication use following FDA risk warnings.

PubMed

Barry, Colleen L; Martin, Andres; Busch, Susan H

2012-09-01

In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigated cardiac and psychiatric risks associated with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication use. To examine how disclosure of safety risks affected pediatric ADHD use, and to assess news media coverage of the issue to better understand trends in treatment patterns. We used the AHRQ's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative household panel survey, to calculate unadjusted rates of pediatric ADHD use from 2002 to 2008 overall and by parents' education. We examined whether children (ages 0 to 20) filled a prescription for any ADHD medication during the calendar year. Next, we used content analysis methods to analyze news coverage of the issue in 10 high-circulation newspapers, the 3 major television networks and a major cable news network in the U.S. We examined 6 measures capturing information conveyed on risk and benefits of ADHD medication use. No declines in medication use following FDA safety warnings overall or by parental education level were observed. News media coverage was relatively balanced in its portrayal of the risks and benefits of ADHD medication use by children. ADHD risk warnings were not associated with large declines in medication use, and balanced news coverage may have contributed to the treatment patterns observed. Self-reported surveys like the MEPS rely on the recall of respondents and may be subject to reporting bias. However, the validity of these data is supported by their consistency with other data on drug use from other sources. These findings are in direct contrast to the substantial declines in use observed after pediatric antidepressant risk warnings in the context of a news media environment that emphasized risks over benefits. Our findings are relevant to the ongoing discussion about improving the FDA's ability to monitor drug safety. Safety warnings occur amid ongoing concern that the agency has insufficient authority and resources to fulfill its mission to protect the public's health. Efforts to bolster the FDA's post-marketing surveillance system have the potential to incorporate more data in decision making to allow for earlier detection of health risks. Further research is needed to assess whether other treatment changes occurred following risk warnings. For example, it is important to determine whether an increase in cardiac screening prior to medication initiation occurred. Likewise, the FDA advises that children experiencing hallucinations or other psychiatric responses to medication be discontinued from drug treatment. If it is determined that instead of being discontinued from medication treatment, children experiencing hallucinations are put on additional medication (e.g., antipsychotics), additional efforts by the FDA to better inform the public are warranted.

Re-active Passive (RAP) Devices for Control of Noise Transmission through a Panel

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Carneal, James P.; Giovanardi, Marco; Fuller, Chris R.; Palumbo, Daniel L.

2008-01-01

Re-Active Passive (RAP) devices have been developed to control low frequency (<1000 Hz) noise transmission through a panel. These devices use a combination of active, re-active, and passive technologies packaged into a single unit to control a broad frequency range utilizing the strength of each technology over its best suited frequency range. The RAP device uses passive constrained layer damping to cover the relatively high frequency range (>200 Hz), reactive distributed vibration absorber) to cover the medium frequency range (75 to 250 Hz), and active control for controlling low frequencies (<200 Hz). The device was applied to control noise transmission through a panel mounted in a transmission loss test facility. Experimental results are presented for the bare panel, and combinations of passive treatment, reactive treatment, and active control. Results indicate that three RAP devices were able to increase the overall broadband (15-1000 Hz) transmission loss by 9.4 dB. These three devices added a total of 285 grams to the panel mass of 6.0 kg, or approximately 5%, not including control electronics.

42 CFR 405.209 - Payment for a non-experimental/investigational (Category B) device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... Medical Services Coverage Decisions That Relate to Health Care Technology § 405.209 Payment for a non... used device serving the same medical purpose that has been approved or cleared for marketing by the FDA. ...

Flat panel ferroelectric electron emission display system

DOEpatents

Sampayan, S.E.; Orvis, W.J.; Caporaso, G.J.; Wieskamp, T.F.

1996-04-16

A device is disclosed which can produce a bright, raster scanned or non-raster scanned image from a flat panel. Unlike many flat panel technologies, this device does not require ambient light or auxiliary illumination for viewing the image. Rather, this device relies on electrons emitted from a ferroelectric emitter impinging on a phosphor. This device takes advantage of a new electron emitter technology which emits electrons with significant kinetic energy and beam current density. 6 figs.

FDA, CE mark or something else?-Thinking fast and slow.

PubMed

Mishra, Sundeep

There is a robust debate going on among the Medical Device stake-holders whether FDA is better or CE mark or something else. Currently process of obtaining an FDA approval is bogged down by ever-increasing unpredictability, inconsistency, prolonged time, and huge expense but CE mark has its own problems. Historically, the Japanese review process has tended to be the slowest among the big three but recently with the introduction of accelerated review process there has been a significant progress. While the goal of an innovator/manufacturer is to develop, manufacture and market a medical device that addresses an unmet clinical need, the requisite regulatory approval process can be very confusing. Not only there is a whole lot of jargon tossed around by regulatory affair professionals: "substantial equivalence," "PMDA," "CE mark," "Notified body," "510K" and "PMA" but the actual approval process can also be very tardy, inconsistent and expensive. Copyright © 2016 Cardiological Society of India. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Characteristics of a wind-actuated aerodynamic braking device for high-speed trains

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Takami, H.; Maekawa, H.

2017-04-01

To shorten the stopping distance of the high speed trains in case of emergency, we developed a small-sized aerodynamic braking unit without use of the friction between a rail and a wheel. The developed device could actuate a pair of two drag panels with a travelling wind. However, after the drag panel fully opened, vibrational movements of the drag panel characterized by its slight flutter were repeated. In this study, to stabilize the opened panel, matters pertaining to the angle of attack with respect to the drag panel and pertaining to the arrangement of the two panels were examined by a wind tunnel experiment using a scale model. As a result, to stabilize the opened panel and to keep the good performance of the braking device, it is found out that an angle of attack of 75 to 80 degrees is suitable provided that the interval of the two panels is narrow enough.

21 CFR 821.55 - Confidentiality.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... MEDICAL DEVICE TRACKING REQUIREMENTS Records and Inspections § 821.55 Confidentiality. (a) Any patient receiving a device subject to tracking requirements under this part may refuse to release, or refuse... identifying information for the purpose of tracking. (b) Records and other information submitted to FDA under...

Assurance Cases for Medical Devices

DTIC Science & Technology

2011-04-28

the patient, and the hospital setting. Some pumps allow the patient to control part of the injection process (e.g. to inject more painkiller ...overdose, incorrect therapy, etc.   Design and development decisions that bear on safety and effectiveness http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices

76 FR 69274 - Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; 510(k) Device Modifications...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-11-08

... for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov...'' from CDRH, you may either send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of...

76 FR 50663 - Effective Date of Requirement for Premarket Approval for Three Class III Preamendments Devices

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-08-16

... completion of a PDP is not filed by the latter of the two dates, and no IDE is in effect, the device is... availability of a preamendments class III devices strategy document. The strategy document set forth FDA's... approved PMA or a declared completed PDP is required to be in effect for any such devices on or before 180...

Brain-computer interface devices for patients with paralysis and amputation: a meeting report

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Bowsher, K.; Civillico, E. F.; Coburn, J.; Collinger, J.; Contreras-Vidal, J. L.; Denison, T.; Donoghue, J.; French, J.; Getzoff, N.; Hochberg, L. R.; Hoffmann, M.; Judy, J.; Kleitman, N.; Knaack, G.; Krauthamer, V.; Ludwig, K.; Moynahan, M.; Pancrazio, J. J.; Peckham, P. H.; Pena, C.; Pinto, V.; Ryan, T.; Saha, D.; Scharen, H.; Shermer, S.; Skodacek, K.; Takmakov, P.; Tyler, D.; Vasudevan, S.; Wachrathit, K.; Weber, D.; Welle, C. G.; Ye, M.

2016-04-01

Objective. The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) believes it is important to help stakeholders (e.g., manufacturers, health-care professionals, patients, patient advocates, academia, and other government agencies) navigate the regulatory landscape for medical devices. For innovative devices involving brain-computer interfaces, this is particularly important. Approach. Towards this goal, on 21 November, 2014, CDRH held an open public workshop on its White Oak, MD campus with the aim of fostering an open discussion on the scientific and clinical considerations associated with the development of brain-computer interface (BCI) devices, defined for the purposes of this workshop as neuroprostheses that interface with the central or peripheral nervous system to restore lost motor or sensory capabilities. Main results. This paper summarizes the presentations and discussions from that workshop. Significance. CDRH plans to use this information to develop regulatory considerations that will promote innovation while maintaining appropriate patient protections. FDA plans to build on advances in regulatory science and input provided in this workshop to develop guidance that provides recommendations for premarket submissions for BCI devices. These proceedings will be a resource for the BCI community during the development of medical devices for consumers.

Evolution and update on current devices for prosthetic breast reconstruction

PubMed Central

2015-01-01

Over the past decade, the leading breast reconstruction modality has shifted from autologous tissue to implants. This trend reversal is multi-factorial but includes increasing bilateral mastectomies and the more widespread acceptance of implants due to stringent quality and safety regulatory surveillance by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Since 2012, the US FDA has approved several new implant styles, shapes and textures, increasing the choices for patients and surgeons. Predictable, superior aesthetic results after prosthetic breast reconstruction are attainable, but require thoughtful planning, precise surgical technique and appropriate device selection based on several different patient and surgeon parameters, such as patient desires, body mass index, breast shape, mastectomy flap quality and tissue based bio-dimensional assessment. This article briefly reviews historic devices used in prosthetic breast reconstruction beginning in the 1960s through the modern generation devices used today. We reflect on the rigorous hurdles endured over the last several decades leading to the approval of silicone gel devices, along with their well-established safety and efficacy. The various implant characteristics can affect feel and performance of the device. The many different styles and features of implants and expanders are described emphasizing surgical indications, advantages and disadvantages of each device. PMID:26005642

Brain-computer interface devices for patients with paralysis and amputation: a meeting report.

PubMed

Bowsher, K; Civillico, E F; Coburn, J; Collinger, J; Contreras-Vidal, J L; Denison, T; Donoghue, J; French, J; Getzoff, N; Hochberg, L R; Hoffmann, M; Judy, J; Kleitman, N; Knaack, G; Krauthamer, V; Ludwig, K; Moynahan, M; Pancrazio, J J; Peckham, P H; Pena, C; Pinto, V; Ryan, T; Saha, D; Scharen, H; Shermer, S; Skodacek, K; Takmakov, P; Tyler, D; Vasudevan, S; Wachrathit, K; Weber, D; Welle, C G; Ye, M

2016-04-01

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) believes it is important to help stakeholders (e.g., manufacturers, health-care professionals, patients, patient advocates, academia, and other government agencies) navigate the regulatory landscape for medical devices. For innovative devices involving brain-computer interfaces, this is particularly important. Towards this goal, on 21 November, 2014, CDRH held an open public workshop on its White Oak, MD campus with the aim of fostering an open discussion on the scientific and clinical considerations associated with the development of brain-computer interface (BCI) devices, defined for the purposes of this workshop as neuroprostheses that interface with the central or peripheral nervous system to restore lost motor or sensory capabilities. This paper summarizes the presentations and discussions from that workshop. CDRH plans to use this information to develop regulatory considerations that will promote innovation while maintaining appropriate patient protections. FDA plans to build on advances in regulatory science and input provided in this workshop to develop guidance that provides recommendations for premarket submissions for BCI devices. These proceedings will be a resource for the BCI community during the development of medical devices for consumers.

75 FR 384 - Event Problem Codes Web Site; Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Availability

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-01-05

...] Event Problem Codes Web Site; Center for Devices and Radiological Health; Availability AGENCY: Food and... the availability of a Web site where the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is posting... to all reporters (Sec. 803.21(b)). FDA is announcing the availability of a Web site that will make...

75 FR 10294 - Strengthening the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's 510(k) Review Process; Public...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-03-05

...] Strengthening the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's 510(k) Review Process; Public Meeting; Extension...). In the notice, FDA requested comments on a number of identified challenges associated with the 510(k... premarket notification (or 510(k)) process for the review of medical devices. Specific questions for comment...

75 FR 76015 - Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 393.200 Laser(s) as Medical Devices for Facelift, Wrinkle Removal...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-12-07

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0551] Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 393.200 Laser(s) as Medical Devices for Facelift, Wrinkle Removal, Acupuncture... Compliance Policy Guide Sec. 393.200 Laser(s) as Medical Devices for Facelift, Wrinkle Removal, Acupuncture...

75 FR 24718 - Town Hall Discussion With the Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-05-05

... Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) fiscal year (FY) 2010 priorities. In addition, FDA is interested in... importance to the medical device industry. CDRH is specifically interested in addressing the following.... Background CDRH has announced four priority areas of activity for FY 2010, each of which presents significant...

78 FR 70306 - Distribution of In Vitro Diagnostic Products Labeled for Research Use Only or Investigational Use...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-11-25

... for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave...''). This guidance is intended to provide the current thinking of CDRH and CBER on when IVD products are... capability for all CDRH guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Device...

Biomedical applications of tissue engineering technology: regulatory issues.

PubMed

Hellman, K B

1995-01-01

Novel emerging technologies such as tissue engineering, which utilize the approaches of molecular and cell biology, biotechnology, as well as materials science and engineering, are being used in the development of a wide range of biomedical products developed by industries regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA's mission is to promote and protect the public health by ensuring the safety and effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, including those manufactured by novel technology, as assessed by scientific principles and methods. Regulatory review is conducted on a product-by-product basis. To accomplish its mission over the wide range of products in its regulatory purview, the FDA has six centers, each staffed with the scientific and regulatory expertise to evaluate the products in the center's jurisdiction. Recent legislative and regulatory changes are designed to simplify and facilitate the administrative process for evaluating novel combination products emanating from such interdisciplinary technology as tissue engineering and to resolve questions of product regulatory jurisdiction. Under the new procedures, the FDA may designate a lead FDA center for product review based on the primary mode of action of the combination product, with additional center(s) designated to assist in the evaluation in a collaborative or consultative capacity. In addition, FDA centers have increased their cooperation and information sharing with regard to evolving interdisciplinary technology. The FDA InterCenter Tissue Engineering Initiative was established to develop information on intercenter efforts in the evaluation of tissue engineering applications and to identify areas for further consideration. The FDA InterCenter Tissue Engineering Working Group, comprised of staff from the Center for Biologies Evaluation and Research (CBER), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) has developed a Draft Report considering recent developments in tissue engineering and scientific and regulatory issues in the product application areas. The Working Group has identified generic safety and effectiveness issues for consideration by the research and development community in its development of products. The FDA centers are using multiple approaches at their disposal in the evaluation of tissue engineered products including research, data and information monitoring, regulatory guidance, training and education, and cooperation with public and private groups.

Re-Active Passive devices for control of noise transmission through a panel

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Carneal, James P.; Giovanardi, Marco; Fuller, Chris R.; Palumbo, Dan

2008-01-01

Re-Active Passive devices have been developed to control low-frequency (<1000 Hz) noise transmission through a panel. These devices use a combination of active, re-active, and passive technologies packaged into a single unit to control a broad frequency range utilizing the strength of each technology over its best suited frequency range. The Re-Active Passive device uses passive constrained layer damping to cover relatively high-frequency range (>150 Hz), reactive distributed vibration absorber to cover the medium-frequency range (50-200 Hz), and active control for controlling low frequencies (<150 Hz). The actuator was applied to control noise transmission through a panel mounted in the Transmission Loss Test Facility at Virginia Tech. Experimental results are presented for the bare panel, and combinations of passive treatment, reactive treatment, and active control. Results indicate that three Re-Active Passive devices were able to increase the overall broadband (15-1000 Hz) transmission loss by 9.4 dB. These three devices added a total of 285 g to the panel mass of 6.0 kg, or approximately 5%, not including control electronics.

21 CFR 16.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-04-01

..., including drugs, biologics, devices, new animal drugs, foods, including dietary supplements, that bear a...), relating to use of food containing an investigational new animal drug. § 511.1(c)(1), relating to whether... products regulated by FDA including drugs, biologics, devices, new animal drugs, foods, including dietary...

21 CFR 16.1 - Scope.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

..., including drugs, biologics, devices, new animal drugs, foods, including dietary supplements, that bear a...), relating to use of food containing an investigational new animal drug. § 511.1(c)(1), relating to whether... products regulated by FDA including drugs, biologics, devices, new animal drugs, foods, including dietary...

Neurostimulation for Drug-Resistant Epilepsy

PubMed Central

DeGiorgio, Christopher M.; Krahl, Scott E.

2013-01-01

Purpose of Review: The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence-based update on the neurostimulation options available for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in the United States and in European countries. Recent Findings: The field of neurostimulation for epilepsy has grown dramatically since 1997, when vagus nerve stimulation became the first device to be approved for epilepsy by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). New data from recently completed randomized controlled trials are available for deep brain stimulation of the anterior thalamus, responsive neurostimulation, and trigeminal nerve stimulation. Although vagus nerve stimulation is the only device currently approved in the United States, deep brain stimulation and responsive neurostimulation devices are awaiting FDA approval. Deep brain stimulation, trigeminal nerve stimulation, and transcutaneous vagus nerve stimulation are now approved for epilepsy in the European Union. In this article, the mechanisms of action, safety, and efficacy of new neurostimulation devices are reviewed, and the key advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed. Summary: The exponential growth of the field of neuromodulation for epilepsy is an exciting development; these new devices provide physicians with new options for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. PMID:23739108

The FDA alert on suicidality and antiepileptic drugs: Fire or false alarm?

PubMed

Hesdorffer, Dale C; Kanner, Andres M

2009-05-01

In January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an alert about an increased risk for suicidality in 199 clinical trials of 11 antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) for three different indications, including epilepsy. An advisory panel voted against a black-box warning on AED labels, and the FDA has accepted this recommendation. We discuss three potential problems with the alert. First, adverse event data were used rather than systematically collected data. Second, the 11 drugs grouped together as a single class of AEDs have different mechanisms of action and very different relative risks, many of which were not statistically significant and some of which were smaller than one. These facts suggest that they should not be grouped as a class. Third, the risk of adverse effects from uncontrolled seizures almost certainly outweighs the small risk of suicidality. We place our comments in the context of a review of the literature on suicidality and depression in epilepsy and the sparse literature on AEDs and suicidality. We recommend that all patients with epilepsy be routinely evaluated for depression, anxiety, and suicidality, and that future clinical trials include validated instruments to systematically assess these conditions to determine whether the possible signal observed by the FDA is real.

Smokers' attitudes and support for e-cigarette policies and regulation in the USA.

PubMed

Wackowski, Olivia A; Delnevo, Cristine D

2015-11-01

In April 2014, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule to extend its tobacco regulatory authority to e-cigarettes, which have been unregulated and growing in use since their 2006-2007 US introduction. The FDA will issue a final rule based on comments and data received from researchers, tobacco companies and the public. We aimed to present data about current smokers' awareness of and attitudes towards potential e-cigarette regulation and various policies in the USA. We conducted a cross-sectional online e-cigarette focused survey of 519 adult current smokers in April 2014, before the FDA's proposed rule was announced. Participants were recruited from a private research panel (GFK's Knowledge Networks) designed to be representative of the US population. The majority of respondents (62.5%) did not know that e-cigarettes are unregulated by the FDA but agreed that e-cigarettes should be regulated by the FDA for safety and quality (83.5%), carry warning labels about their potential risks (86.6%) and have the same legal age of sale as other tobacco (87.7%). Support was similarly high among current e-cigarette users. Support was substantial though lower overall for policies to restrict e-cigarette indoor use (41.2%), flavouring (44.3%) and advertising (55.5%), and was negatively associated with current e-cigarette use. Support for many e-cigarette regulatory policies is strong among smokers, including for policies that the FDA has recently proposed and potential future regulations. States considering indoor e-cigarette restrictions should know that a substantial number of current smokers support such regulations. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Medical Devices; General Hospital and Personal Use Devices; Classification of the Ultraviolet Radiation Chamber Disinfection Device. Final order.

PubMed

2015-11-20

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is classifying the ultraviolet (UV) radiation chamber disinfection device into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the UV radiation chamber disinfection device classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

78 FR 2647 - Dental Devices; Reclassification of Blade-Form Endosseous Dental Implant

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-01-14

.... FDA-2012-N-0677] Dental Devices; Reclassification of Blade-Form Endosseous Dental Implant AGENCY: Food...) is proposing to reclassify the blade- form endosseous dental implant, a preamendments class III... proposing to revise the classification of blade-form endosseous dental implants. DATES: Submit either...

78 FR 35937 - Food and Drug Administration Decisions for Investigational Device Exemption Clinical...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-06-14

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0790] Food and Drug Administration Decisions for Investigational Device Exemption Clinical Investigations; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug...

76 FR 11789 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-03-03

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0344...; Testing Communications on Medical Devices and Radiation-Emitting Products AGENCY: Food and Drug... collection of information entitled ``Testing Communications on Medical Devices and Radiation-Emitting...

21 CFR 807.40 - Establishment registration and device listing for foreign establishments importing or offering...

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... submit the name, address, and phone number of its United States agent as part of its initial and updated... phone number to FDA within 10-business days of the change. (c) No device may be imported or offered for...

21 CFR 807.40 - Establishment registration and device listing for foreign establishments importing or offering...

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... submit the name, address, and phone number of its United States agent as part of its initial and updated... phone number to FDA within 10-business days of the change. (c) No device may be imported or offered for...

Citizen's Petition to Food and Drug Administration to ban cornstarch powder on medical gloves: Maltese cross birefringence.

PubMed

Edlich, Richard F; Long, William B; Gubler, K Dean; Rodeheaver, George T; Thacker, John G; Borel, Lise; Chase, Margot E; Cross, Catherine L; Fisher, Allyson L; Lin, Kant Y; Cox, Mary J; Zura, Robert B

2009-02-01

During the last 25 years, scientific experimental and clinical studies have documented the dangers of cornstarch powder on examination and surgical gloves because the cornstarch promotes wound infection, causes serious peritoneal adhesions and granulomatous peritonitis, and is a well-documented vector of the latex allergy epidemic in the world. Realizing the dangers of cornstarch on examination and surgical gloves, Germany's regulations of personal protective equipment banned the use of surgical glove powder cornstarch in 1997. In 2000, the Purchasing and Supply agency for the United Kingdom ceased to purchase any gloves lubricated with cornstarch. Realizing the dangers of cornstarch-powdered gloves, many hospitals and clinics in the United States have banned the use of cornstarch-powdered examination and surgical gloves. Hospitals that have banned cornstarch in their examination and surgical gloves have noted a marked reduction in the latex allergy epidemic in their facilities. Realizing the dangers of cornstarch-powdered examination and surgical gloves, Dr Sheila A. Murphey, branch chief, Infection Control Devices Branch, Division of Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Infection Control, and Dental Devices Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), recommended that a Citizen's Petition be filed to the FDA to ban cornstarch on surgical and examination gloves. The 12 authors of this report have attached the enclosed petition to the FDA to ban the use of cornstarch on all synthetic and latex examination and surgical gloves used in the United States.

77 FR 72355 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-12-05

... also received a comment that asked FDA to provide more detail about the design of the proposed consumer... respondents respondent responses Pretest 60 1 60 0.5 (30 minutes) 30 Screener 15,000 1 15,000 0.016 (1 minute.... Sixty panel members will take part in a pretest of the study, estimated to last 30 minutes (0.5 hours...

78 FR 14557 - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: Investigational Device Exemption...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-03-06

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0010] Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: Investigational Device Exemption Guidance for Retinal Prostheses; Availability AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The...

75 FR 54493 - Cardiovascular Devices; Reclassification of Certain Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-09-08

... catheters when used for treatment of acute myocardial infarction (MI), treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and/or post-deployment stent expansion. III. Device Description FDA identifies this generic type of... for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction; treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) and/or post...

75 FR 63845 - Medical Device User Fees; Public Meeting; Extension of Comment Period

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2010-10-18

...] Medical Device User Fees; Public Meeting; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration... stakeholders on the Agency's medical user fee program and requested suggestions regarding the commitments FDA... interested stakeholders to discuss the Agency's medical user fee program and requested suggestions regarding...

76 FR 41803 - Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Establishing the Performance...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2011-07-15

... of In Vitro Diagnostic Devices for the Detection or Detection and Differentiation of Influenza... of Influenza Viruses.'' FDA is issuing this guidance to inform industry and Agency staff of its... diagnostic devices intended for the detection or detection and differentiation of influenza viruses. DATES...

78 FR 79308 - Dental Devices; Reclassification of Temporary Mandibular Condyle Prosthesis

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-12-30

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 872 [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1239] Dental Devices; Reclassification of Temporary Mandibular Condyle Prosthesis AGENCY... delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 872 is amended as follows: PART 872--DENTAL...

78 FR 23941 - Pilot Program for Early Feasibility Study Investigational Device Exemption Applications...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-04-23

...] Pilot Program for Early Feasibility Study Investigational Device Exemption Applications; Extending the... 13343), FDA terminated the acceptance of applications into the program and extended the pilot program for the nine accepted sponsors until May 8, 2013. The pilot program will be further extended for the...

21 CFR 821.25 - Device tracking system and content requirements: manufacturer requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-04-01

... manufacturer of a tracked device shall keep current records in accordance with its standard operating procedure... this section. A manufacturer shall make this standard operating procedure available to FDA upon request. A manufacturer shall incorporate the following into the standard operating procedure: (1) Data...

21 CFR 821.25 - Device tracking system and content requirements: manufacturer requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-04-01

... manufacturer of a tracked device shall keep current records in accordance with its standard operating procedure... this section. A manufacturer shall make this standard operating procedure available to FDA upon request. A manufacturer shall incorporate the following into the standard operating procedure: (1) Data...

21 CFR 821.25 - Device tracking system and content requirements: manufacturer requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... manufacturer of a tracked device shall keep current records in accordance with its standard operating procedure... this section. A manufacturer shall make this standard operating procedure available to FDA upon request. A manufacturer shall incorporate the following into the standard operating procedure: (1) Data...

21 CFR 821.25 - Device tracking system and content requirements: manufacturer requirements.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-04-01

... manufacturer of a tracked device shall keep current records in accordance with its standard operating procedure... this section. A manufacturer shall make this standard operating procedure available to FDA upon request. A manufacturer shall incorporate the following into the standard operating procedure: (1) Data...

21 CFR 884.5970 - Clitoral engorgement device.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 21 Food and Drugs 8 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false Clitoral engorgement device. 884.5970 Section 884.5970 Food and Drugs FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (CONTINUED... entitled: “Guidance for Industry and FDA Reviewers: Class II Special Controls Guidance Document for...

78 FR 66941 - Design Considerations for Pivotal Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices; Guidance for...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-11-07

... assessment. In some cases, a PMA may include multiple studies designed to answer different scientific... designing clinical studies intended to support premarket submissions for medical devices and for FDA staff who review those submissions. This guidance document describes different study design principles...

78 FR 39649 - Physical Medicine Devices; Reclassification of Stair-Climbing Wheelchairs; Correction

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2013-07-02

... DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 890 [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0568] Physical Medicine Devices; Reclassification of Stair-Climbing Wheelchairs; Correction AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Proposed order; correction. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug...

77 FR 69488 - Medical Devices; Custom Devices; Request for Comments

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-11-19

...: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA... Act). The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is in the process of developing an implementation... electronically at http://www.regulations.gov . 1. The Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act...

77 FR 33223 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review...

Federal Register 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014

2012-06-05

... preparedness activities, FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) began developing operational plans and interventions that would enable CDRH to anticipate and respond to medical device shortages... particular, CDRH identified the need to acquire and maintain detailed data on domestic inventory...

Medical devices; immunology and microbiology devices; classification of nucleic acid-based devices for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and the genetic mutations associated with antibiotic resistance. Final order.

PubMed

2014-10-22

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying nucleic acid-based in vitro diagnostic devices for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB-complex) and the genetic mutations associated with MTB-complex antibiotic resistance in respiratory specimens devices into class II (special controls). The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) because special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

No sisyphean task: how the FDA can regulate electronic cigarettes.

PubMed

Paradise, Jordan

2013-01-01

The adverse effects of smoking have fostered a natural market for smoking cessation and smoking reduction products. Smokers attempting to quit or reduce consumption have tried everything: "low" or "light" cigarettes; nicotine-infused chewing gum, lozenges, and lollipops; dermal patches; and even hypnosis. The latest craze in the quest to find a safer source of nicotine is the electronic cigarette. Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have swept the market, reaching a rapidly expanding international consumer base. Boasting nicotine delivery and the tactile feel of a traditional cigarette without the dozens of other chemical constituents that contribute to carcinogenicity, e-cigarettes are often portrayed as less risky, as a smoking reduction or even a complete smoking cessation product, and perhaps most troubling for its appeal to youth, as a flavorful, trendy, and convenient accessory. The sensationalism associated with e-cigarettes has spurred outcry from health and medical professional groups, as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), because of the unknown effects on public health. Inhabiting a realm of products deemed "tobacco products" under recent 2009 legislation, e-cigarettes pose new challenges to FDA regulation because of their novel method of nicotine delivery, various mechanical and electrical parts, and nearly nonexistent safety data. Consumer use, marketing and promotional claims, and technological characteristics of e-cigarettes have also raised decades old questions of when the FDA can assert authority over products as drugs or medical devices. Recent case law restricting FDA enforcement efforts against e-cigarettes further confounds the distinction among drugs and medical devices, emerging e-cigarette products, and traditional tobacco products such as cigarettes, cigars, and smokeless tobacco. This Article investigates the e-cigarette phenomenon in the wake of the recently enacted Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (TCA). It examines the tumultuous history of attempts at tobacco regulation by reflecting on the history of Congressional activity to regulate tobacco sales and promotion. Furthermore, this Article suggests a feasible approach to strengthening regulation of e-cigarettes under the existing statutory framework. This approach includes increased scrutiny of manufacturer and distributor claims that trigger drug and medical device provisions, utilization of new tobacco product and modified risk tobacco product provisions, and promulgation of new FDA regulations and guidance specifically directed at e-cigarettes.

"Bringing a Butter Knife to a Gun Fight"? Salience, Disclosure, and FDA's Differing Approaches to the Tobacco Use and Obesity Epidemics.

PubMed

Weimholt, Josef

2015-01-01

One might expect--given the vastly different look, feel, and function of the ubiquitous (and innocuous) Nutrition Facts panel and the "inflammatory" graphic warning labels for cigarettes--that the statutes establishing such disclosure requirements would exhibit similar disparities. In fact, the relevant provisions of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 and the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 are. quite analogous. Like other mandated disclosures, the nutrition label and the cigarette. graphic warnings seek to simultaneously inform and influence consumer decisions. Both statutes grant FDA considerable discretion in.the implementation of the labeling requirements, generally allowing the agency to alter the format and content of the labels as necessary to promote the statutory goals. Thus, the differences in the nutrition and cigarette warning labels are not the product of the statutory schemes alone; rather, they reflect important differences in FDA's interpretation and prioritization of the dual regulatory goals, and in the agency's implicit or explicit assumptions about human behavior.

How are drugs approved? Part 1: the evolution of the Food and Drug Administration.

PubMed

Howland, Robert H

2008-01-01

The discovery, development, and marketing of drugs for clinical use is a process that is complex, arduous, expensive, highly regulated, often criticized, and sometimes controversial. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the governmental agency responsible for regulating the development and marketing of drugs, medical devices, biologics, foods, cosmetics, radiation-emitting electronic devices, and veterinary products, with the objective of ensuring their safety and efficacy. As part of a broad overview of the drug development process, this article will describe the historical evolution of the FDA. This will provide background for two subsequent articles in this series, which will describe the ethical foundations of clinical research and hethe stages of drug development.

A new non-pharmacological vacuum therapy for female sexual dysfunction.

PubMed

Billups, K L; Berman, L; Berman, J; Metz, M E; Glennon, M E; Goldstein, I

2001-01-01

Although Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD) affects 40% of American women, there is no FDA-approved pharmaceutical therapy. The EROS-CTD (Clitoral Therapy Device, UroMetrics, Inc., St. Paul, MN) treatment is the first FDA cleared-to-market therapy for FSD. Clitoral engorgement is believed to play an important role in female sexual arousal and overall sexual satisfaction. The EROS-CTD is a small, battery-powered device designed to enhance clitoral engorgement, increase blood flow to the clitoris, and ultimately improve arousal in women with FSD. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the EROS-CTD on sexual arousal (genital sensation, vaginal lubrication, ability to reach orgasm, and sexual satisfaction) in normal volunteers and women with FSD.

Detection of low frequency external electronic identification devices using commercial panel readers.

PubMed

Stewart, S C; Rapnicki, P; Lewis, J R; Perala, M

2007-09-01

The ability of a commercially available panel reader system to read International Standards Organization-compliant electronic identification devices under commercial dairy conditions was examined. Full duplex (FDX-B) and half-duplex (HDX) low frequency radio-frequency identification external ear tags were utilized. The study involved 498 Holstein cows in the final 6 wk of gestation. There were 516 total electronic identification devices (n = 334 HDX and n = 182 FDX-B). Eighteen FDX-B were replaced with HDX during the study due to repeated detection failure. There were 6,679 HDX and 3,401 FDX-B device detection attempts. There were 220 (2.2%) unsuccessful and 9,860 (97.8%) successful identification detection attempts. There were 9 unsuccessful detection attempts for HDX (6,670/6,679 = 99.9% successful detection attempts) and 211 unsuccessful detection attempts for FDX-B (3,190/3,401 = 93.8% successful detection attempts). These results demonstrate that this panel system can achieve high detection rates of HDX devices and meet the needs of the most demanding management applications. The FDX-B detection rate was not sufficient for the most demanding applications, requiring a high degree of detection by panel readers. The lower FDX-B rate may not be inherent in the device technology itself, but could be due to other factors, including the particular panel reader utilized or the tuning of the panel reader.

Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification of the Metallic Biliary Stent System for Benign Strictures. Final order.

PubMed

2016-07-13

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the metallic biliary stent system for benign strictures into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the metallic biliary stent system for benign strictures' classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.