I recommend against relying on any data I provide in today’s post. I hope the data are at least somewhat accurate. But they are not nearly as accurate as they should be, or as they could be, if FDA just released a key bit of information they have been promising to share for years.
One of the ways data scientists can provide insights is by grafting together data from different sources that paint a picture not seen elsewhere. What I want to do is join the clinical trial data at www.clinicaltrials.gov with the data maintained by FDA of approved drugs, called drugs@FDA. But I can’t, at least not with much accuracy.
When we think about the top players in the medical device development space, we often see device company sponsors, clinicians, scientists, and FDA regulators as the ones driving the process. But what about the patient perspective? Does that get factored in?
On May 3, 2019, FDA established a docket to collect public input on a proposed list of patient preference-sensitive areas for medical device review, and posed certain related questions (comments are due July 2, 2019). By identifying these key areas (which it committed to as part of the reauthorization of the Medical Device User Fee ...
FDA published the long awaited draft guidance on wellness products last Friday. The guidance is a positive step forward for industry in that it proposes that certain general wellness products will not be subject to FDA regulation.
The draft guidance clarifies that FDA does not intend to enforce its regulations against products that are "low risk" and are intended to:
- Maintain or encourage health without reference to a disease or condition (e.g. weight, fitness, stress) or
- Help users live well with or reduce risks of chronic conditions, where it is well accepted that a healthy ...
Last week both CDER and CDRH released a list of guidance documents they intend to develop or finalize over the next year. However, it is interesting to note that the approach and information provided by each FDA center diverged significantly. CDRH provided details as to the priority of guidances they plan on developing, offered specific metrics they will use to measure success, and opened up a docket to receive stakeholder comments. CDER also provided a list of guidances; however the process to administer comments and specificity on what guidance documents would be prioritized was ...
- NJ Approves Cannabis Regulatory Amendment with Major Impacts on Class 5 Retail License Holders
- Unpacking Averages: Device Manufacturers Should Use the Newly Released Demographic Data in MDRs to Ensure Their Devices Are Not Disproportionately Hurting Minorities
- CMS Announces Comprehensive Plan to Ensure EMTALA Compliance
- Telehealth’s Roadblock: The Issue with State Licensure Requirements
- CMS Announces New Primary and Behavioral Health Care Integration Demonstration Model