On September 6, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), the Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, issued a white paper about the oversight and legislative role of Congress related to the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in areas under the HELP Committee’s jurisdiction, including health and life sciences. In the
Scott Danzis practice focuses primarily on the regulation of medical devices, but also includes regulation of drugs, biologics, and tobacco products. Mr. Danzis regularly works with companies in developing strategies for interacting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including strategies for clinical development and premarket review (including appeals and dispute resolution, when needed). He also advises on compliance with postmarket requirements, including advertising and promotion restrictions, quality system and manufacturing requirements, postmarket reporting, recalls, and enforcement actions.
As we kick off 2022, several recent developments from FDA suggest that this year could be pivotal for the Agency’s digital health priorities. From new FDA offices and artificial intelligence guidance, to FDA’s user fee commitments and must-pass legislation in Congress, this post outlines five key issues to watch in 2022 related to FDA and…
On July 28, 2020, FDA announced the publication of a final guidance on Multiple Function Device Products: Policy and Considerations that outlines FDA’s evolving approach to the regulation of multiple function device products, including software.
The concept of “multiple function” products was introduced by the 21st Century Cures Act (“Cures Act”) of 2016, which…
The following guidance could be relevant to manufacturers of software as a medical device (SaMD). The recently-enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) added new section 506J to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). This section requires manufacturers of certain devices to notify FDA of an interruption or permanent discontinuance…
On September 26, 2019, the FDA issued two revised guidance documents addressing its evolving approach to the regulation of digital health technologies. These guidances primarily describe when digital health solutions will or will not be actively regulated by FDA as a medical device. In parallel, FDA also updated four previously final guidance documents to ensure alignment with the new approaches being adopted by the Agency.
As background, FDA issued draft guidance documents in December 2017 that sought to implement section 520(o)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), which was enacted by Congress in the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 (the “Cures Act”). Those guidance documents raised a number of issues that we discussed on this previous alert.
After receiving comments from stakeholders, the Agency responded by issuing: (i) a revised draft guidance document for clinical decision support (CDS) software (“Clinical and Patient Decision Support Software” or the “CDS Draft Guidance”) and (ii) a final guidance document for other software functions exempted by the Cures Act (“Changes to Existing Medical Software Policies Resulting from Section 3060 of the 21st Century Cures Act” or the “Software Policies Guidance”).
Here are key takeaways on FDA’s newly-issued guidance:
Continue Reading FDA Issues Updated Guidance on the Regulation of Digital Health Technologies
On April 2, 2019, FDA released a discussion paper entitled “Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)-Based Software as a Medical Device (SaMD)” (the “AI Framework”). The AI Framework is the Agency’s first policy document describing a potential regulatory approach for medical devices that use artificial intelligence (“AI”) and machine learning (“ML”). The AI Framework does not establish new requirements or an official policy, but rather was released by FDA to seek early input prior to the development of a draft guidance. FDA acknowledges that the approach “may require additional statutory authority to implement fully.”
In an accompanying press release, former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb outlined the need for a “more tailored” regulatory paradigm for algorithms that learn and adapt in the real world. FDA’s medical device regulation scheme was not designed for dynamic machine learning algorithms, as the Agency traditionally encounters products that are static at the time of FDA review. The AI Framework is FDA’s attempt to develop “an appropriate framework that allows the software to evolve in ways to improve its performance while ensuring that changes meet [FDA’s] gold standard for safety and effectiveness throughout the product’s lifecycle.”
Continue Reading FDA Outlines Proposed Framework for Regulating Artificial Intelligence Software
On December 8, FDA addressed the agency’s evolving approach to digital health by issuing two new draft guidance documents: “Clinical and Patient Decision Support Software” (the “CDS Draft Guidance”) and “Changes to Existing Medical Software Policies Resulting From Section 3060 of the 21st Century Cures Act” (the “Software Policies Draft Guidance”). These draft guidances announce the agency’s initial interpretation of the health software provisions enacted as part of last year’s 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”).
Given the rapid pace of digital health innovation across the life sciences, technology and health care sectors, FDA guidance on these topics is critical. Here are a few key takeaways from the draft guidances:
- FDA’s initial interpretation of the Cures Act provision related to clinical decision support (CDS) software may lead to a fairly narrow carve-out—in other words, many cutting-edge CDS software functions could remain subject to FDA regulation.
- FDA’s draft guidances do not directly address dynamic digital health solutions, such as those that incorporate machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), or blockchain.
- FDA has proposed an enforcement discretion approach for decision support software aimed at patients that generally parallels the regulatory approach for CDS software aimed at clinicians, even though patient decision software was not addressed directly in the Cures Act.
- Consistent with the Cures Act, FDA’s draft guidances reflect that many of the software functions that were previously subject to FDA enforcement discretion (i.e., not actively regulated as devices) no longer meet the definition of “device.”
- Significant for pharmaceutical companies, CDER joined one of the draft guidances, and that draft guidance makes clear that other FDA requirements may apply to digital health products disseminated by or on behalf of a drug sponsor beyond those outlined in the draft guidance.
FDA’s regulatory approach has a significant impact on the investment in and development of digital health solutions across the digital health ecosystem. Stakeholders should consider submitting comments to the agency to help shape the direction of FDA’s final guidances on these topics.Continue Reading FDA Outlines Updated Approach to Regulating Digital Health Technologies
On November 14, lawyers from Teva Pharmaceuticals and Covington & Burling discussed digital health innovation from a medical device regulation perspective in the U.S. and the EU. The presentation by Rachel Turow, Executive Counsel – Regulatory Law, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Grant Castle, Scott Danzis, Sarah Cowlishaw, and Christina Kuhn of Covington, covered topics such as…