Health Law Advisor

As an update to our prior blog post, on April 20, 2020 FDA announced the authorization of the first COVID-19 test for home collection of specimens. This announcement, made via the Agency’s FAQs on Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2 webpage, comes after weeks of FDA reporting that it has been working closely with manufacturers on such a test during the weekly Virtual Town Hall Meetings hosted by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. FDA clarifies that the test is only authorized for home collection of specimens to be sent back to a laboratory for processing. FDA still has not authorized a COVID-19 test “to be completely used and processed at home.”

According to the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) letter for the test, the new home collection method involves the use of a nasal swab, as opposed to a nasopharyngeal swab. Home collection is only permitted “when determined by a healthcare provider to be appropriate based on results of a COVID-19 questionnaire.” Instructions for self-collection must be made available to individuals online or as part of the collection kit, and the kit must include materials allowing the patient to safely mail the specimen to an authorized laboratory. The letter states that the EUA will be in effect until there is a declaration that the circumstances justifying this authorization is terminated or revoked.

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 ...

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 ...

As we move into 2015, stories about the use of 3-D printing (also called additive manufacturing) in the health care industry continue to hit headlines. Some 3-D printed products are already available to U.S. patients, including knee and cranial implants, while others, including a graft device to treat aneurysms, are coming down the pipeline.

In touch with this trend, FDA has formed an Additive Manufacturing Working Group, and in October 2014, the Agency engaged industry stakeholders to discuss technical considerations surrounding 3-D printed products. However, according to ...