FDA issues final guidance on benefit-risk factors to consider in medical device product availability, compliance, and enforcement decisions

Similar documents
Establishing Rules for: Medical Device Reports (803) & Correction and Removal Reports (806)

FDA issues long-awaited final guidance on when a device modification requires a new 510(k)

TOBACCO PRODUCT OR MEDICAL PRODUCT?

February 2, Dear Dr. Shuren,

Determining Whether A Dietary Supplement Study Requires an Investigational New Drug (IND)

Re: Docket No. FDA D Presenting Risk Information in Prescription Drug and Medical Device Promotion

Medical Devices and the Public s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years. Written Statement of

AFDO Conference June 9, Mercedes Mota, Director Medical Device, Surgical Care Johnson & Johnson Quality & Compliance Worldwide

2/17/2018. Prof. Steven S. Saliterman Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota

Prof. Steven S. Saliterman. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Minnesota

Review of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff

Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff

Preparing a US FDA Medical Device 510(K) Submission

Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations

IRB review of device studies

Use of Standards in Substantial Equivalence Determinations

Introduction. Current status of 510(k) clinical data requirements. 1 Current Status&Considerations:

Over-the-Counter Pediatric Liquid Drug Products Containing Acetaminophen

Key CDRH Regulatory Initiatives

5101K] SUMMARY [as required by (c)]

Planning For The FDA s 'Deeming Rule' For E- Cigarettes

FDA Regulation of Diagnostic Tests Jeffrey N. Gibbs Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C. Washington, DC

Available at: Bioethics.gov

CMS Issues New Draft Guidance on Coverage with Evidence Development Policy for National Coverage Determinations

Health care guidelines, recommendations, care pathways

Overview of the Legal Framework for Medical Device Regulation in the United States

The FDA s Premarket Review of Tobacco Products Fails to Fully Protect Public Health

Summary of responses: Consultation on determining the amount of a variable monetary penalty. April 2017

Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Intraoral Devices for Snoring and/or Obstructive Sleep Apnea; Guidance for Industry and FDA

Towards a Systematic Approach to REMS Design. Adam Kroetsch Office of Program and Strategic Analysis OSP, CDER, FDA September 25, 2013

FDA: Taking Action Against Marketing Unapproved Drugs

a practical guide ISO 13485:2016 Medical devices Advice from ISO/TC 210

Raritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 6/20/17

Consistent with Labeling Final Guidance: Implications for Devices

FDA Oversight of Nanotechnology Applications in Foods, Food Packaging, and Nutrient Delivery

Guidance for Industry DRAFT GUIDANCE. This guidance document is being distributed for comment purposes only.

The Tobacco Control Act s Premarket Review Authorities: Reports on Substantial Equivalence and Exemption Requests (905(j))

Primer: Medical Device User Fee Amendments Han Zhong l September 2011

FDA Perspectives on Point of Care Use of Glucose Meters

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD GUIDANCE ON ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT

Medical Devices. BARBADOS Clarke Gittens Farmer

The AAA statement on Ethnography and Institutional Review Boards (2004) provides a useful working definition:

Guidance for Industry

PIC/S GUIDANCE ON CLASSIFICATION OF GMP DEFICIENCIES

Dear DEA. Howard A. Heit, MD, FACP, FASAM,* Edward Covington, MD, and Patricia M. Good

Medication errors. Impact of medication error guidance and regulation on drug-device combination products. June 2017 Dan Wozinski

Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration San Francisco District 1431 Harbor Bay Parkway Alameda, CA Telephone: 510/

Advancing Use of Patient Preference Information as Scientific Evidence in Medical Product Evaluation Day 2

Overhauling The 510(k) Process

Global Regulation of Food Additives

Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (IRB)

Clinical Policy Title: Investigational (experimental) health services

VIOLENCE PREVENTION ALLIANCE TERMS OF REFERENCE

Global Harmonization Task Force SG3 Comments and Recommendations ISO/DIS 9001: 2000 and ISO/DIS 9000: 2000 And Revision of ISO and 13488

Web Meeting Sep 20, Presented by: Kimberly Belsky, DIA AdPromo WG Chair DIA, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

4/26/2013. Libia Lugo Drug Specialist San Juan District Office Investigations Branch

How can EHS management help reduce your enterprise risk?

Explanatory Memorandum to the Food Labelling (Declaration of Allergens) (Wales) Regulations 2008

ANNEX 4: Sample TOR for a

Minister s Opioid Emergency Response Commission Recommendations to the Minister Updated July 5, 2018

May 16, Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305) Food and Drug Administration 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061 Rockville, MD 20852

Department of the Navy Human Research Protection Program

Guidance - IDE Early/Expanded Access for Devices

CHAPTER 2: RISK ANALYSIS

BEST PRACTICE CHANGE CONTROL : DECIDING WHEN TO SUBMIT A 510(K) FOR A DEVICE CHANGE. Yuan Xu 18- JAN- 2018

Baylor University Hearing Conservation Program OSHA 29 CFR

Considerations for requiring subjects to provide a response to electronic patient-reported outcome instruments

UPDATE ON PREMARKET TOBACCO PRODUCT AUTHORIZATION PATHWAY

Independent Assurance Statement by Bureau Veritas

OHRP Guidance on the Involvement of Prisoners in Research

Exploration of Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Efforts in Washington State

KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE NEW MEDICAL DEVICE AND THE OTC REGULATIONS IN EUROPE

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Preface

In the Matter of Portland General Electric Company 2016 Integrated Resource Plan Docket LC 66

REGULATION AND HTA OF MEDICAL DEVICES IN EU: WHAT CAN WE LEARN?

Community Development Division: Funding Process Study Update

ANDA Arthur P. Bedrosian, President Armenpharm, Ltd. 49 South Ridge Road P.O. Box D1400 Pomona, NY December 3, 2015

Committed to Environment, Health and Safety

2014 FDA/JIFSAN Food & Nutrition Webinar

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget

SFIREG Issue Paper: Pesticide Use on Cannabis State Established Pesticide Residue Action Levels

Mitch Zeller, Director, Center for Tobacco Products, FDA September 19, 2013 Kansas Public Health Association

.. There is no clirect evidence that the levels of mercury released from dental amalgam are

CFSAN Update Michael M. Landa

Land quality (contamination)

Responsibilities of Laser Light Show Projector Manufacturers, Dealers, and Distributors; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA.

a practical guide Medical Devices Advice from ISO/TC 210 This is a free 11 page sample. Access the full version online.

NATIONAL QUALITY FORUM

Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff. Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: External Penile Rigidity Devices

RE: IESBA s Exposure Draft Proposed Revisions Pertaining to Safeguards in the Code Phase 1

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act: The Key New Requirements

INRANGE SYSTEMS. Citizen Petition

Enforcement Capacity and Measuring Effectiveness. Werner Bijkerk Head of Research, IOSCO

California Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix 1. Cognitive Impairment and Dementia Service Elm Lodge 4a Marley Close Greenford Middlesex UB6 9UG

Pennsylvania Pre-Disaster Recovery Plan

Guidance for Industry

Transcription:

FDA issues final guidance on benefit-risk factors to consider in medical device product availability, compliance, and enforcement decisions 23 January 2017 On December 27, 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a final guidance document entitled Factors to Consider Regarding Benefit-Risk in Medical Device Product Availability, Compliance, and Enforcement Decisions. 1 The guidance provides insight into the factors FDA considers when prioritizing resources for compliance and enforcement efforts and when undertaking compliance and enforcement actions. The guidance, which is largely consistent with the June 2016 draft, is intended to harmonize the agency s approach to weighing benefits and risks for compliance and enforcement actions with the benefit-risk framework for assessing marketing and investigational device exemption (IDE) applications. FDA has indicated that it intends to use a consistent approach to benefit-risk analysis in considering compliance and enforcement actions and decisions on premarket applications. While the guidance may provide insight into both pre- and post-market considerations, premarket decision-making is beyond its scope. The guidance outlines factors that may be used by medical device manufacturers to understand how FDA will approach various compliance and enforcement scenarios. This in turn could then be used by a company to develop voluntary remedial actions and communications with patients, caregivers, and FDA. The guidance also provides worksheets to help manufacturers conduct benefit-risk assessments, as well as a series of examples to demonstrate FDA s application of the benefit-risk factors in various scenarios. Summary of benefit and risk factors The guidance emphasizes that, to the extent possible, FDA intends to make informed and sciencebased decisions for how and when to proceed with compliance and enforcement actions against device manufacturers. FDA makes a holistic assessment by examining and weighing the potential benefits and risks of a device to patients and healthcare providers when considering whether or not to move forward with an enforcement action. Accordingly, devices that provide substantial benefit to patients while raising low risks generally will be considered a lower enforcement priority. FDA identifies the following factors relating to the benefits of a device for consideration: 1 Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm506679.pdf.

Type of benefit(s) Evaluation of this factor includes consideration of the medical device s impact on patient health and clinical management. In evaluating this factor, FDA will consider the effect of the device on patient treatment plans and the quality of life; impact on survival and ability to perform activities of daily living; and how much the medical device can aid in improving patient function, preventing loss of function, or providing relief from the symptoms of the disease or condition that it is intended to treat. Magnitude of the benefit FDA will consider the effect of the product on patient health and clinical management, particularly in comparison with the originally anticipated impact. As part of this factor, FDA also will consider whether real-world data demonstrates successful diagnosis or treatment using the device, as well as whether actual use has led to new or additional benefits. Likelihood of patients experiencing one or more benefits The agency also will consider the proportion of patients treated/diagnosed using the device that have benefited from its use. Data available to the manufacturer would be particularly important in evaluating this factor and in determining potential steps forward. Duration of effects FDA will look at how long the effects of the device last (for instance, does the device cure a disease or provide a temporary treatment), and whether the actual duration of the effect is consistent with the anticipated duration of the effect. Patient perspective on benefit The agency will consider how patients value the use of the medical device. Benefit factors for healthcare professionals/caregivers FDA also will consider whether use of the device directly improves patient outcomes or improves clinical practice for healthcare professionals. Medical necessity FDA will consider the importance of benefits provided or needs addressed by the device, as well as the extent to which these benefits or needs may be addressed by other available medical devices. The benefit and risk factors associated with alternative medical devices, their availability, and their effectiveness also will be considered as part of this factor. While recognizing that all devices carry some level of risk, even without nonconformities or compliance issues, FDA also identified the following factors relating to the risk of a device for consideration: Severity of harm. FDA will consider the severity of harm presented by the device. The agency categorizes the potential harm into three levels: Medical device-related deaths and serious injuries Events that may have been or were attributed to the use of the medical device, and that cause or contribute to a death or injury or illness that is life threatening or that require medical surgical intervention to prevent permanent harm to the body. Note that the definition of serious 2

injury comes from 21 C.F.R. Part 803 (regulations pertaining to Medical Device Reporting (MDR)). Medical device-related non-serious adverse events Events including those that may have been or were attributed to the use of the medical device and that cause or contribute to minor, temporary, or medically reversible injuries that do not meet the criteria for classification as a medical device-related serious injury. Medical device related events without reported harm Events including malfunctions as defined in 21 C.F.R. Part 803. This category can include events where a medical device fails to meet performance specifications, even if the device still performs adequately to meet patient needs. Likelihood of risk The agency also will evaluate the frequency of a specific failure mode as a proportion of patients treated with the device, both as anticipated by the manufacturer and as indicated based on data regarding use of the device in the field. Whether the identified failure mode is increasing also will be considered. Distribution of nonconforming devices In assessing this factor, FDA will consider the number of nonconforming devices on the market and their market share. Duration of exposure to population FDA will consider the length of time between initial patient exposure to the device and the point at which the risk of harm is resolved. False-positive or false-negative results For diagnostic devices, FDA will evaluate the likelihood and consequences of a false-positive or false-negative, including providing unnecessary treatment or failure to provide effective treatment. Patient tolerance of risk The level of concern patients have regarding the harm that may be caused by device. Risk for clinicians/caregivers FDA will evaluate the frequency and severity of potential risks for health care professionals or caregivers. In addition to the benefit and risk factors outlined above, FDA also will consider the following: The degree of uncertainty when making assessments. Mitigations that are taken by the manufacturer, FDA, or other stakeholders to benefit or limit harm. Detectability of the nonconformities. The specific failure modes in question. Scope of the device issue. Patient impact. Preference for availability. Nature of violations/nonconforming product. Firm compliance history. 3

Key takeaways This guidance explains the various factors considered when determining whether or not to take compliance or enforcement actions against medical device manufacturers, as well as whether or not to make such actions formal. In general, FDA has indicated that in situations where non-compliant products presenting high benefit to patients with little associated risk, FDA is likely to work with the manufacturer to address the underlying use without initiating a formal compliance or enforcement action. On the other hand, if FDA s benefit-risk assessment indicates low benefit to patients associated with high risk, a formal compliance or enforcement action is likely. Overall, the guidance memorializes the agency s intent to take a holistic view of enforcement and compliance actions and their implementation. 4

Contacts Mike Heyl Partner, Washington, D.C. Tel +1 202 637 5456 mike.heyl@hoganlovells.com Danielle Humphrey Senior Associate, Washington, D.C. Tel +1 202 637 8853 danielle.humphrey@hoganlovells.com Arthur Kim Associate, Washington, D.C. Tel +1 202 637 4648 arthur.kim@hoganlovells.com 5