IRB review of device studies

Similar documents
5/13/2015. FDA Oversight and IRB Review of Studies that Include In-Vitro Diagnostics. Webinar Objectives

Direct-to-consumer devices and the DIY community

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

DETERMINING WHETHER AN ACTIVITY IS HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL REGULATIONS

TOBACCO PRODUCT OR MEDICAL PRODUCT?

September 23, The Role of In Vitro Diagnostic Tests in Pediatric Master Protocol Development

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

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

Preparing a US FDA Medical Device 510(K) Submission

IRB consortia as an approach to facilitating effective and efficient reviews

Institutional Review Boards and Human Subjects Protection

Department of the Navy Human Research Protection Program

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

IRB Policy 5 Research Activities

RE: Permits under the Arizona Pharmacy Act should not be required for dietary supplements

IRB EXPEDITED REVIEW

RESEARCH INVOLVING PRISONERS

Protecting Human Subjects In Social-Behavioral-Educational Research:

Crossing the Line. When does innovative therapy become research?

Institutional Review Board (IRB) at SMU. Dr. Maribeth Kuenzi, Chair Ms. Shannon Lunt, SMU Director of Research Compliance

David L. Rosen, B.S. Pharm., J.D. Partner, Adv. and FDA Regulatory Practice Co-chair, Life Sciences Industry Team Washington, DC

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

Guidance for Industry

The proposed rule is significant, and the requirements and exceptions are complex. Key provisions of the proposal are described below.

Our medtech experts are yours. 510(k)s for Connected Medical Devices.

Ethical issues in human subjects research

Guidance - IDE Early/Expanded Access for Devices

Consistent with Labeling Final Guidance: Implications for Devices

PROVIDENCE CHRISTIAN COLLEGE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION TO USE HUMAN PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH

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

IRB for Humanists. Naomi E. Coll, MPH, CPH, CIP Manager of Research Integrity

DIY and Regulatory Aspects of Transcranial Stimulation. Anthony Lee; Photo credit, David Yellen (IEEE Spectrum, 3/14/14)

We are inviting you to participate in a research study/project that has two components.

DIY and Regulatory Aspects of Transcranial Stimulation. Anthony Lee; Photo credit, David Yellen (IEEE Spectrum, 3/14/14)

Gyan Rai, PhD 06/04/2015

Getting Your Ingredient to Market: Understanding Your Regulatory Options Venable LLP

Taylor C. Wallace, PhD, CFS, FACN, March 22, 2018

Mark M. Yacura. Partner

MIAMI CHILDREN S HOSPITAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE

Food. [[Page 999]] Part IV. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR Part 101

TSDR Pharmacy Inc. dba brandmd Skin Care 11/9/17

Scientific Misconduct September 15, Presented by May Al Kassar

OHRP - Guidance on Research Involving Coded Private Information or Biological Specimens

SUBJECT: SJMHS Institutional Review Board(s): Vulnerable Populations - Research Involving Prisoners

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD GUIDANCE ON ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT

Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations

Reporting to the IRB Part 2

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

Raritan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 6/20/17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INFORMATION. General Allegations. A. Introduction and Background

perpetuate -- and perhaps even intensify -- that controversy. 1 On July 18th, the Fifth Circuit affirmed FDA s longstanding position that

Facet Arthroplasty. Policy Number: Last Review: 9/2018 Origination: 9/2009 Next Review: 3/2019

Talon Compounding Pharmacy 10/3/17

Use of Standards in Substantial Equivalence Determinations

Aligning a Product s Marketing, Regulatory and IP Plans

Doing Double Duty Collecting Data for FDA and CMS in the Same Study

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

Human Research Protection Program Institutional Review Board Procedure

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

Department of the Navy Human Research Protection Program

NOTICE OF INITIATION OF DISQUALIFICATION PROCEEDINGS AND OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN

EVMS Authorship Guidelines

Sandoz Inc. 12-Aug-08

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

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

We are inviting you to participate in a research study/project that has two components.

Taking Part in Cancer Treatment Research Studies

WAIS Supplements Policy

INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. INVESTIGATOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY

NCI CIRB Independent Model studies is described herein.

ST. MICHAEL S HOSPITAL Guidelines for Reporting Serious Adverse Events / Unanticipated Problems to the SMH Research Ethics Board (REB) July 09, 2014

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

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

Final Rule Material: Changes to Exempt Categories

Florida State University Policy 7-IRB-26

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

Safety Evaluation for Substances Directly Added to Food

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

Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations

O(K) SUMMARY. Mega'Gen Co., Ltd , Eupchun-Ri, Jain-Myun. Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk South Korea Phone: , Fax:

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA HEALTH SYSTEM

Institutional Review of Research Involving Human Participants. IRB Presentation. University of Central Florida Office of Research & Commercialization

EXEMPT RESEARCH. Investigators should contact the IRB Office if there are questions about whether an amendment consists

IDEA Early Intervention Due Process Complaints and Hearing Requests Part C Procedures

Graphical display of diagnostic test results in electronic health Records: a comparison of 8 systems

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Attention: Scott D. Tomsky Vice President, US Generics Regulatory Affairs 425 Privet Road Horsham, PA 19044

SECTION 2. SUMMARY AND CERTIFICATION

ALCOHOL, CANNABIS, AND TOBACCO

Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Toxicology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory

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

IRB GRAND ROUNDS SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH: NEED TO KNOW

Mini Summit XIV: Clinical Trial Disclosure and Results Reporting Liability under FDAAA, Section 801

Satellite Club or New Club The Right Fit

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

Levels of IRB Review

COMMON RULE 2019 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: JANUARY 21, 2019

According to the Indications and Usage section of the FDA-approved product labeling (PI) 1 :

RESULTS AT A GLANCE. FDA Oversight of Tobacco Manufacturing Establishments. HHS OIG Data Brief August 2017 OEI

MDCH IRB REVIEW APPLICATION Authority: Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46

Transcription:

Washington University School of Medicine Digital Commons@Becker 2011 Device Advice from the FDA 2011 Conferences 2011 IRB review of device studies Jonathan M. Green Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/hrpoconf_devad2011 Recommended Citation Green, Jonathan M., "IRB review of device studies" (2011). 2011 Device Advice from the FDA. Paper 7 Human Research Protection Office, Washington University in St. Louis. http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/hrpoconf_devad2011/7 This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the 2011 Conferences at Digital Commons@Becker. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Device Advice from the FDA by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Becker. For more information, please contact engeszer@wustl.edu.

Jonathan M. Green MD Associate Professor of Medicine Associate Dean of Human Studies Executive Chair of the IRB 2011

Is a device used in this study? If yes: Is it approved? Is it exempt? What is the risk? SR/NSR determination

The practice of medicine A class of activities designed solely to enhance the well being of an individual patient. Not monitored by the IRB Off label use of an approved device not subject to IRB oversight. The conduct of research a class of activities designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Different set of duties and obligations Subject to IRB review and federal regulatory guidelines

A medical device is an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including any component, part, or accessory, which is recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopeia, or any supplement to them, intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes (21 U.S.C. 321(h)).

If you are using the device in a clinical investigation, it is by definition investigational. That does not mean it always needs an IDE Might be exempt Might be NSR (subject to abbreviated requirements)

All Device Investigations Subject to IDE regulations Exempt from IDE Regulations Significant Risk (SR): Full IDE Requirements Non-significant Risk (NSR) Abbreviated IDE Requirements

Practice of Medicine Off label therapeutic use within the practitionerpatient relationship Basic Physiologic Research Investigating a physiologic principle No intent to develop for marketing Only using to address the research question, not safety and effectiveness

Is it being used within its approved indication Is the device modified at all? How is it being used in the study? What is on the PMA or 510(k) approval and how does that compare to the use you are proposing in your study Does the use of the device in this study add risk to the subject?

A diagnostic device, if the sponsor complies with applicable requirements in 809.10(c) and if the testing: Is noninvasive, Does not require an invasive sampling procedure that presents significant risk, Does not by design or intention introduce energy into a subject, and Is not used as a diagnostic procedure without confirmation of the diagnosis by another, medically established diagnostic product or procedure.

A device undergoing consumer preference testing, testing of a modification, or testing of a combination of two or more devices in commercial distribution, if the testing is not for the purpose of determining safety or effectiveness and does not put subjects at risk.

Studies to support marketing application Studies that will be submitted to the FDA Studies of new indications

IRB must determine if: Significant Risk: requires application to the FDA and assignment of IDE #, FDA reporting and monitoring requirements Non-significant risk: abbreviated IDE requirements, IRB review, no application to the FDA NOT the same as the FDA class NOT the same as the minimal risk determination.

Is intended as an implant and presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject; Is purported or represented to be for use supporting or sustaining human life and presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject; Is for a use of substantial importance in diagnosing, curing, mitigating, or treating disease, or otherwise preventing impairment of human health and presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject; or Otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a subject.

Everything else

If previously decided by the FDA, sponsor should provide the determination letter. If no previous FDA decision, sponsor makes initial determination. IRB must review and either agree or modify the sponsor determination if they disagree. FDA is final arbiter if submitted.

Review sponsor/pi information. What is the basis for the risk? Proposed use of the device, not the device alone. What is the nature of the harm that may result? Potential for serious risk to health, safety or welfare Are there any additional procedures with potential for harm? Harm of the procedure should be considered, not just the device.

Consequences of getting it wrong You may have unnecessarily exposed the participants to risk. Your study may get closed prior to completion. You may not be allowed to use the data at all. You will be conducting an investigation in violation of federal regulatory guidelines and may be subject to sanctions by the institution and/or federal agencies.

Emergency use of an unapproved device is permissible if: The patient has a life-threatening condition that needs immediate treatment; No generally acceptable alternative treatment for the condition exists; and Because of the immediate need to use the device, here is no time to use existing procedures to get FDA approval

IRB requirements If time, you should submit a Form 11 to the IRB before the emergency use. If not, you must submit afterwards If possible, informed consent should be obtained. Obtain sponsor authorization Independent physician assessment.

Must be reported to FDA and IRB w/in 5 days of use. IRB requires 30 day follow up

Appropriate if the investigational device is the only option available for a patient with a serious or life-threatening condition. Differs from emergency use in that there is time to seek prior FDA and IRB approval, which is required for it to be used. Specific monitoring and reporting requirements apply

We are available to help you with this process!