FDA Regulatory

In its August 2024 issue, the journal Environmental International published an article called Tampons as a Source of Exposure to Metal(loid)s. The article reports on the results of a recent study by researchers from Columbia, UC Berkeley, and Michigan State that evaluated the presence of metals in different tampons. The research team evaluated 60 samples of tampons, representing 30 unique products from 24 different brands, for the presence of 16 different metals. The researchers found that all the tampons evaluated contained measurable concentrations of each of the 16 metals, including toxic metals such as lead, arsenic, and zinc.

Read about the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) joint workshop in the latest edition of AI: The Washington Report, a joint undertaking of Mintz and ML Strategies covering potential federal legislative, executive, and regulatory activities related to AI.

On June 28, 2024, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released draft guidance for industry, titled Diversity Action Plans to Improve Enrollment of Participants from Underrepresented Populations in Clinical Studies (the Draft Guidance), for public review and comment. The Draft Guidance was issued pursuant to a directive from Congress in the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA), signed into law in December 2022, which required FDA to issue or update guidance on diversity action plans that sponsors submit for certain clinical studies of investigational drugs and medical devices. The Draft Guidance also serves to update guidance that FDA previously issued on the topic in April 2022.

We have been writing about software as a medical device (SaMD) for years, tracking the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) efforts to keep up with the fast-paced development of digital technology, such as launching the Digital Health Center of Excellence, implementing predetermined change control plans, and issuing various digital health guidances on device software functions, clinical decision support software, cybersecurity, and other topics. In anticipation of FDA’s Artificial Intelligence /Machine Learning (AI/ML) Medical Devices Workshop in October 2021, we posted a brief history of the agency’s regulatory oversight of software through the traditional medical device regulatory framework established in the 1970s, in which we highlighted the numerous challenges associated with such an approach. But now, with the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning and the proliferation of AI/ML-enabled software throughout the health care industry, FDA is facing enormous challenges using an outdated, procrustean regulatory framework to maintain standards of safety and quality for such software devices. It is becoming increasingly clear that innovation in the AI/ML and digital health technology space is advancing rapidly, as FDA Commissioner Rob Califf has emphasized in many recent public appearances, and that the traditional device framework is quickly becoming unworkable for such technologies.

After a long wait, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a Final Rule to harmonize the Quality System Regulation (QSR) codified at 21 C.F.R. Part 820 with the internationally accepted standard for medical device quality management systems established by the International Organization for Standardization, the 2016 edition of ISO 13485, “Medical devices - Quality management systems - Requirements for regulatory purposes” (known as “ISO 13485:2016”). We previously mentioned back in January 2021 that FDA had plans to initiate notice-and-comment rulemaking to describe the harmonization process sometime in 2021, plans that the agency had been discussing for years prior. FDA finally published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the harmonization in February 2022 and, then, following the agency’s consideration of stakeholders’ submitted comments, it issued the Final Rule on February 2, 2024.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released a proposed rule that would seek to regulate laboratory developed tests (LDTs) as medical devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This rule could reshape the landscape of LDTs and, as expected, has generated substantial attention and feedback from the public, with both supportive and negative comments flooding in. We previously provided a summary of the proposed rule and FDA’s lengthy justification for it here. In this blog post, we will examine some of the key arguments presented in the public comments submitted to Docket FDA-2023-N-2177, as well as public statements published by industry trade associations.

Since the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) was signed into law, cosmetics companies have spent the past year preparing to comply with its provisions. This includes the facility registration and cosmetic product listing requirements that have were mandated by Congress in the new law. Under MoCRA, the statutory deadline for meeting these foundational requirements is set at December 29, 2023 (one year after MoCRA’s enactment). However, on November 8, 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Guidance for Industry: Compliance Policy for Cosmetic Product Facility Registration and Cosmetic Product Listing (Compliance Guidance) and announced that enforcement of facility registration and cosmetic product listing requirements will be delayed six months.

U.S. health care attorneys, investors, and industry stakeholders are very familiar with the well-worn mantra that prescription drug and medical device companies are not allowed to “market” or “promote” their otherwise-authorized medical products for unapproved uses, also known as “off-label” uses. Over the past decade or so, this strict rule has been the subject of significant litigation and administrative proceedings seeking to disrupt and ultimately soften the government’s position in this long-standing, complex balancing of competing interests. What has been emerging is a more nuanced modern regime in which a drug or device sponsor’s First Amendment rights to speak responsibly and in a non-promotional way about its own products – as well as health care providers’ interests in gaining access to such information directly from the product sponsor to enhance patient care – are gaining greater recognition than ever before.