Making Continuous Improvements in the Combination Products Program: The Pre-RFD Process

By: Thinh Nguyen and Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H.

One question that sponsors often ask FDA is whether their medical product will be regulated as a drug, a device, a biologic, or as a combination product, and in the case of the latter, which FDA component will regulate it.

Thinh Nguyen

Thinh Nguyen, FDA’s Director, Office of Combination Products

One way sponsors may determine how their product will be classified is to submit a Request for Designation (RFD) to the Office of Combination Products (OCP). This request requires FDA to provide a written determination of product classification and/or which agency component will regulate the product if it is a combination product. Sponsors have also been able to obtain less formal feedback regarding product classification through communications with OCP.

We are pleased to announce that the Agency is making some changes to our internal procedures for responding to communications from sponsors regarding preliminary product classification assessments from OCP. The Pre-Request for Designation (Pre-RFD) process is the result of cooperative efforts by OCP, the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco, and CDER Lean, including a formal internal evaluation that incorporates current state process mapping and identifies and integrates process improvements.

Rachel Sherman

Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H., FDA’s Associate Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco

The Pre-RFD process shares some similarities with the RFD process. In both cases, FDA’s assessment depends on sponsors providing a complete, clear, and detailed product description, which includes the product’s indication for use, its composition/ingredients, and an explanation of how it works. In most instances, both processes also require input from the product jurisdiction officers in the relevant Centers and, if necessary, legal perspectives from the Office of Chief Counsel.

Once OCP has received the necessary input, the Office makes its assessment of the classification and/or Center assignment for the product. OCP’s goal for Pre-RFDs is to respond to sponsors within 60 days following receipt of all information needed to initiate the review—the same timeline for responding to RFDs. During this review period the office will communicate with the sponsors as needed.

When may this Pre-RFD process be useful?

The Pre-RFD process can be used at any point during medical product development. It may be preferable to the more formal RFD process when a sponsor would like to engage FDA using a more interactive approach—a course that may be especially helpful when a medical product is at an early stage in its development, or when a sponsor is contemplating whether to develop a specific product, or what configuration of that product to pursue. In such cases, sponsors may find the Pre-RFD process beneficial for the following reasons:

(1) Sponsors are not required to provide a recommendation for classification and assignment of their product along with a corresponding rationale (e.g., bench studies; clinical studies) for that recommendation;

(2) Sponsors are not required to discuss the classification of currently marketed products that they believe to be similar to their product; and,

(3) Sponsors can receive preliminary feedback and information from the Agency that is derived from a structured and efficient process. The feedback will ultimately help lead to better decision-making and development of products for the sponsors.

Pre-RFD flow chart

FDA’s Pre-RFD Process Flow: To view, click on the image.

Because our feedback will be based on the information submitted, sponsors should bear in mind that the speed and quality of any review, whether Pre-RFD or formal RFD, is highly dependent on the quality of the submitted data.

The Agency is developing a draft guidance about the Pre-RFD process, which provides details about information sponsors should include in a Pre-RFD and describes the procedure for FDA’s review. In addition, the Agency plans to publish a list of product classifications for various types of products. We believe this list will offer additional transparency and clarity to sponsors that will ultimately foster innovation and promote better health for patients. We welcome your feedback regarding the Pre-RFD and RFD Programs, as well any other thoughts regarding the jurisdictional assessment of products.

A sponsor who wishes to submit a Pre-RFD or an RFD for a product can find detailed information at the OCP website or contact OCP at combination@fda.gov for further assistance.

Thinh Nguyen is FDA’s Director, Office of Combination Products

Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H., is FDA’s Associate Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco

Piloting an Improved Intercenter Consult Process

By: Michael Rappel, Ph.D., and Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H.

Over the last few months, we’ve shared what FDA is doing to improve the review of combination products, including establishing the Combination Product Council and identifying necessary process improvements through lean mapping of the combination product review process. We are pleased to update you on the proposed intercenter consult request (ICCR) process that will be piloted across the Agency today.

Michael Rappel

Michael Rappel, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and member of the Lean Management Team.

Combination products—those that combine drugs, devices, and/or biological products—present both policy and review challenges in large part because they include constituent parts that fall into more than one regulatory category (e.g., drug and device; drug and biologic) covered by more than one FDA product center. As such, close intercenter collaboration and communication are important to facilitate timely, appropriately-tailored and well-informed submission review. A combination product will generally have a lead center which may seek consults from the other centers that oversee one of the product’s constituent parts. Timely and consistent consults are critical, yet achieving this has been challenging due to different policies, practices, and timelines for consults across centers and insufficient communications between centers and sponsors.

Our new process addresses these issues with four important improvements:

  • Establishing timelines, specific to center and submission type, for identifying products as combination products and issuing and completing consults needed to support the review;
  • Developing  a tiered consult approach that streamlines interactions across centers and identifies a clear process for identifying the right experts for a consult;
  • Defining clear roles and responsibilities for the Lead Center, the Consulted Center(s), the Office of Combination Products (OCP), and the Combination Product Council for review of a combination product submission; and,
  • Creating a standard, semi-automated, user-friendly ICCR form that is managed electronically to ensure 1) users always have the most updated version and 2) all forms, and thus all intercenter combination product consults, are tracked through a single system.
Rachel Sherman

Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., MPH, FDA’s Associate Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco

FDA will begin piloting this new ICCR process today in select offices within our three medical product centers, focusing on those offices or divisions that routinely receive combination product submissions that require cross center consults. The pilot will be comprised of three phases, with phase 1 planned to last for two months. Additional offices in each center will be rolled into the pilot in subsequent phases with the goal of achieving implementation across all Offices by the end of 2Q 2017 (targeted).

During each phase of implementation, we will collect quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate success. What we learn at each stage will allow us to refine processes, procedures, and training for subsequent phases. In particular, data from phases 1 and 2 will be used largely to refine the initial steps of the ICCR process (e.g., consult request, ICCR form, reviewer assignment) though some limited consult completion data (e.g., consult quality and timeliness) available for Investigational Device Exemptions/Investigational New Drugs may provide initial insights on consult closeout. Consult completion data for other submission types will also be collected but may not be available for several months due to the longer submission review timelines.

This iterative approach will ensure implementation of a robust ICCR process that enables efficient, effective collaboration on the review of combination products. Further, auditing regarding combination product designation and consult tier assignment completed by each center will verify effective knowledge transfer or highlight gaps to focus on in subsequent improvement efforts.

This current effort has been driven by a cross-Agency ICCR working group and builds on the important work of many others across the Agency.

We hope this overarching approach to cross-center activity will, if successful, serve as a flagship model for other cross-Agency initiatives requiring close collaboration. We believe that this kind of nimble, adaptive cooperation reflects the future of medical product development and review in an increasingly complex and nuanced arena. Stay tuned—we plan to keep you updated on our progress along the way. Meanwhile, if you have any feedback or input, please feel free to contact us at: combinationproductICCRpilot@fda.hhs.gov.

Michael Rappel, Ph.D., is Senior Science Advisor in FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and is a member of the Lean Management Team

Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H., is FDA’s Associate Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco

Charting a Path Forward on Food Safety, Nutrition and Animal Health

By: Stephen Ostroff, M.D., Susan Mayne, Ph.D., and Tracey Forfa, J.D.

Stephen Ostroff, M.D.

Stephen Ostroff, M.D., is the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine

At FDA, we need to be prepared for the opportunities and challenges of today as well as those of tomorrow, and the FDA Foods and Veterinary Medicine Program’s new Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2016-2025 helps us to do just that.

Our new Strategic Plan makes it clear that we must have an overarching and risk-based approach that encompasses our broad portfolio of responsibilities. The plan organizes this work under four key goals: food safety, nutrition, animal health and organizational excellence.  Whether it’s chemical safety, dietary supplements, cosmetics, genetic engineering, nutrition labeling, antimicrobial resistance, review of animal drugs, or ensuring that we have the right technologies to identify hazards in the commodities we regulate—all of these issues impact the public health.  FDA is a public health agency first and foremost—and that is where our focus will be, using the core principle of science and tools such as regulation and guidance, research, and outreach and education to get us there. This fall, we’ll be issuing a broad implementation plan which will highlight specific actions under these four goals.

Susan Mayne

Susan Mayne, Ph.D., is Director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Over the past several years we’ve made a lot of progress in a number of key areas. We have been very focused on developing the implementation framework for the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), an enormous undertaking to modernize our preventive approach to food safety, and that work will continue. At the same time, we’ve made great headway on nutrition, modernizing the Nutrition Facts label, publishing draft, voluntary targets for reducing sodium in various foods, and making a final determination that partially hydrogenated oils are no longer “generally recognized as safe.”  We’ve addressed the impact of animal agriculture on antimicrobial resistance by phasing out the use of medically important antimicrobials for production use and bringing remaining uses under the direction of veterinarians. And whole genome sequencing has helped us to identify the sources of foodborne illness outbreaks with speed and precision.

Tracey Forfa

Tracey Forfa, J.D., is Acting Director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine

One important lesson we learned from our work on FSMA that we can apply moving forward is the importance of transparency and active stakeholder engagement. We transformed the way we do business, and it helped to make our work on FSMA successful. Sometimes, our perspectives may differ from those of our stakeholders, but the important thing is that we seek common areas of alignment to solve problems. We plan to use this approach more broadly.

It’s important that our plan stays current. It will be updated to reflect emerging science, technology, innovation, and trends in globalization. It will keep pace with emerging hazards and risks in the products we regulate. That is why we are establishing an open docket. Comments can be submitted at any time, so that we can consider them and update the plan at least every two years.

We encourage you to take a look at the plan and let us know what you think. We will have plenty of opportunity for discussion in the months and years to come as we work to improve the public health together.

Read the Foods and Veterinary Medicine (FVM) Program’s Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2016–2025

Stephen Ostroff, M.D., is the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine

Susan Mayne, Ph.D., is Director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

Tracey Forfa, J.D., is Acting Director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine

Leveraging the Power of Collaboration – FDA’s New Oncology Center of Excellence

By: Richard Pazdur, M.D.

I am honored to be selected by Commissioner Califf today as the acting director of FDA’s new Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) in support of the Vice President’s National Cancer Moonshot Initiative.

Dr. Richard PazdurThis new center will be a place where the combined skills of regulatory scientists and reviewers with oncology clinical expertise in drugs, biologics, and devices will come together to support an integrated approach to the advancement of cancer treatment.

The OCE emulates both academia and cancer care centers, which are increasingly organized in multidisciplinary models to enhance collaboration, which is so essential when confronting a complex disease like cancer.

Such a collaborative approach – the sharing of ideas, information and best practices – closely fits my own vision for oncology at the FDA.

When I first joined FDA from the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston Texas in 1999, oncology products were reviewed in different divisions within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), in addition to those reviewed by other centers. My current Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP) was created in 2005 in an attempt to consolidate the review of oncology products within CDER. Additional reorganization into disease-specific teams followed in 2011. This reorganization greatly enhanced both our retention and recruitment of professional staff from leading academic centers. Disease-specific expertise expedited review processes and fostered multiple outreach activities to patient and professional groups. Between 2010 to the present, OHOP approved 61 new molecular entities to treat a variety of cancers – and most approvals were well before their deadlines.

The OCE will build on FDA’s integrative approach to medical product development and the collaborative work that has been a hallmark of the broader FDA oncology community for nearly a decade such as our cross-center monthly meetings to discuss key oncology issues, collaborative workshops and programs and the work we’ve done together on research and scientific publications.

This new center will also continue to facilitate the incorporation of the patient view in our regulatory decision-making, which has become a personal mission for me since my wife Mary, an oncology nurse, died of ovarian cancer last November.

And by bridging the various medical product centers, the OCE will be ideally suited to support innovation and to address the recognition that multiple treatment and diagnostic options are in the best interest of patients.

Certainly the key to OCE’s future success will be leveraging the talents of the staff at FDA. The very first thing I plan to do as acting director is to meet  with those involved in oncology medical product development and review across centers to hear their ideas for the OCE and how we can work together to enhance our efforts across the agency.

Developing the structure of the OCE is an ongoing process. Working closely with the center directors we will develop a staged approach for establishing the new center while ensuring the work across centers continues without disruption.

I look forward to guiding the agency through this initial phase, building our cross-disciplinary review staff, providing external outreach to diverse stakeholders and streamlining administrative processes to ensure rapid review of important cancer products to the American public.

Richard Pazdur, M.D., is FDA’s Acting Director, Oncology Center of Excellence

FDA: A Great Place for Science…and for Scientists on the New Frontier of Regulatory Science

By: Robert M. Califf, M.D.

Robert CaliffAs FDA Commissioner, I’m proud of our agency’s extraordinary commitment to using the best available science to support our mission to protect and promote the health of the American public. This is especially critical today, as rapid scientific and technological advances are helping to expand our understanding of human biology and underlying disease mechanisms and to identify the molecular profile of a food contaminant.

These breakthroughs offer unprecedented opportunities for us to develop new treatments and cures and to protect our food supply with a robust system that meets the challenges of globalization.

But there’s another benefit that derives from our application of cutting-edge science to the challenges we face, which has become increasingly evident to me through my conversations with some of FDA’s more than 10,000 scientists. And that’s the deep personal and professional satisfaction gained from working in FDA’s state-of-the-art laboratories on front-line issues that make a real difference in the lives of all Americans. As one FDA scientist commented, “At FDA, your work is really at the crossroads of cutting-edge technology, patient care, tough scientific questions, and regulatory science.”

Being Part of a Vibrant Collaborative Scientific Environment

Whether you’re a biologist, chemist, epidemiologist, pharmacist, statistician, veterinarian, nurse, physician, or an engineer and whether you’re a recent graduate or a seasoned scientist, FDA offers an unmatched opportunity to be a part of a vibrant, collaborative culture of regulatory science.

FDA scientists gain a bird’s eye view of the pharmaceutical and food industries, and develop a thorough familiarity and understanding of the regulatory structure that guides these industries. As one young FDA scientist recently commented, “We see a tremendous breadth of different products here, which helps us learn quickly and makes our jobs interesting and challenging.” Another newly trained FDA scientist shared, “We have the chance to work with highly trained colleagues, within and across disciplines, to build and keep our scientific training cutting-edge.”

While the work of FDA scientists helps to advance scientific understanding, it goes much further than that. That’s because our work is directly tied to regulatory decisions. As such it has a powerful and immediate effect on the health of millions of Americans. As another FDA scientist explained, “We get to see how these basic science and clinical advances get applied to producing medical treatments and devices and how these can make differences in people’s lives.”

FDA offers a number of fellowship, internship, graduate, and faculty programs through which newly-minted scientists can join FDA and continue to apply and develop their skills. Many of these individuals remain on as full-time FDA scientists. One former FDA Fellow said they appreciate how “FDA makes room for and respects voices of young, qualified scientists.”

Tackling the Most Challenging Scientific Issues

So, although I may frequently boast about FDA’s responsibility and ability to do rigorous scientific research and its importance for the American public, I’m speaking as much about our scientists as our science. And I hope that when other young talented scientists consider these testimonies from our multifaceted scientific workforce they will be encouraged to join us.

I want to see more professionals take advantage of the opportunities FDA offers to collaborate on some of the most transformative scientific issues of our times – both for their benefit and for the nation’s. We need the best scientific minds to tackle the challenges of food safety, medical product development, and to evaluate how emerging technologies are affecting FDA-regulated products so that our reviewers can make science-based decisions about a product’s benefits and risks.

That’s why we’ve successfully added thousands of qualified new employees over the last several years and worked hard to fill mission-critical positions. It’s also why we continue to seek more hiring flexibilities and other ways that enable us to be more competitive with private-sector salaries for these positions.

The career opportunities at FDA are enormous, and I look forward to welcoming the next generation of scientists of every stripe to help us fulfill our mission. It’s not only good for science and essential to FDA’s ability to protect and promote public health; it’s a unique opportunity for these talented scientists and their careers.

FDA Scientists Discuss Their Cutting-Edge Research in FDA Grand Rounds Webcasts

Robert M. Califf, M.D., is Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

FDA Celebrates the 40th Anniversary of the Medical Device Amendments

By: Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D.

In 1976, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak founded Apple and a gallon of gas was $.59. And in another action that has had long term impact, President Ford signed the Medical Device Amendments that closed the dangerous gap between what he called FDA’s “horse and buggy authority” and “laser age problems.”

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D.

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., FDA’s Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, speaking at FDA’s Celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the Medical Device Amendments

Unlike the pharmaceutical industry, which was born from large chemical companies that discovered medical uses for the products they made, the device industry sprung to life as a scrappy sibling—mostly mom-and-pop businesses addressing the needs of individual patients and physicians through invention.

Although Congress had first given FDA explicit authority over medical devices in the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the focus was on fraudulent products. Efforts to extend FDA’s oversight on medical devices failed in 1962 and again in 1970.

Then in 1975, reports emerged that thousands of women had been harmed, some even died, from pelvic inflammatory disease, as the result of using the Dalkon Shield, an intrauterine device for contraception. Congress responded the following year by enacting the Medical Device Amendments, which authorized FDA to classify all medical devices based on risk into one of three classifications, to require premarket approval for Class III devices, and for devices to comply with reporting and GMP requirements.

The law ushered in a new era for medical technology innovation, patient access, and patient safety, but also created a tension, contributing to a political environment where the pendulum continues to swing between these objectives, defining and driving the medical device ecosystem ever since.

In signing the legislation, President Ford noted that, when “well designed and well-made and properly used” medical devices “support and lengthen life.” But when medical devices are “poorly designed, poorly made, and improperly used” they can “threaten and impair” life.” His words still ring true today.

The initial Medical Device Program started with about 180 people. Today, FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is 1,700 strong; a vibrant family of individuals with a wide range of scientific, clinical, engineering, legal, and other expertise, who hail from a variety of backgrounds, and who are ready to tackle the latest scientific advancement.

And the mom and pop industry has transformed into a world of sophisticated software algorithms, miniaturization, combination products, wearable sensors, non-invasive procedures and diagnostics, robotics, and artificial intelligence.

Along the way, CDRH has adapted its expertise and regulatory approaches to meet the needs of such rapidly evolving innovation. While we will continue to adapt, more importantly, we are focusing on proactively anticipating where we need to be so that regulatory innovation is out in front of medical device innovation. We’re doing this now in the digital health space, by designing regulatory frameworks around the type of technology and its unique evidence generation and innovation cycle rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

We are implementing new models for evidence generation. They include the establishment of a National Evaluation System for health Technology, or NEST, that could transform the historical tension between device innovation, patient access and patient safety into an alignment of interests to drive the development and more timely access to life-saving, life-enhancing, and life-advancing devices. This is consistent with our vision: That patients in the U.S. have access to high-quality, safe and effective medical devices of public health importance first in the world.

And we are also going to new places with patients by establishing a foundation for engaging with them as our partners and routinely incorporating their perspectives in our decisions. And that’s fitting because improving the health and the quality of life of patients by assuring they have timely access to medical technologies that will benefit them is at the heart of who we are and what we do.

As we look ahead to the future, it is our work, our care and our dedication that will allow us to reach our vision.

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., is FDA’s Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health

For more information read: Remarks at FDA’s Celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the Medical Device Amendments, by Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D.

Important steps toward streamlining access to investigational drugs for patients in need

By: Richard A. Moscicki, M.D.

FDA is only too aware that there are many patients who have a serious or life-threatening medical condition for which there is no available FDA-approved therapy. For such patients, one option may be to obtain access to an investigational drug that has not yet been approved by FDA. To do this, a physician submits an application to the FDA requesting authorization to use the investigational drug in the treatment of their patient. This is called expanded access to investigational drugs.

Dr. Richard MoscickiWhile FDA has been helping physicians navigate the system for many years, we are aware there have been physician and patient concerns about this process, which can be time consuming and difficult to understand. Consequently, FDA has recently made significant changes to streamline and simplify the process for single patient expanded access requests.

To make the expanded access process more efficient, we’ve just introduced a much simpler application form called the Form FDA 3926, which will be the form doctors now will typically fill out when they want to provide an investigational drug for a patient through expanded access. While the Form 1571 had 26 information fields and seven attachments, the new Form 3926 has fewer fields (11) and only one attachment. With this streamlined format, we estimate that physicians will be able to complete the form in just 45 minutes, as compared to the more difficult and time consuming effort required previously.

Also, as part of our commitment to streamlining the expanded access process, on May 16, 2016, the FDA and the Reagan-Udall Foundation held a meeting with interested stakeholders to explore additional options that might help patients and their physicians understand the process to request access to unapproved drugs. A common theme of the meeting was that navigating the expanded access process really does take a village. The physician, the drug company, FDA, and the institutional review board (IRB) all have important roles and must work together for the expanded access process to succeed.

The FDA and Reagan-Udall Foundation convened this forum to listen to the public express their needs about expanded access and to discuss ideas with stakeholders on ways that the complex process can be made more efficient and effective. Much work on the details remains, but in general there was agreement on the need for a central repository or clearinghouse where useful and relevant information could be stored in one place — a sort of “one-stop-shop” for physicians and patients to seek information about the expanded access process. As our thinking about this resource develops, we’ll keep the public informed.

For physicians seeking more information about expanded access to an investigational drug, we have developed an educational webinar to help them become familiar with the new application form. This live webinar will occur on July 12 at 1:00 PM EDT and will offer one hour of Continuing Education (CE) credit. The webinar will be recorded for viewing without CE credit. We also have released a guidance regarding Form FDA 3926, a guidance with Questions and Answers on expanded access, as well as a guidance directed at industry addressing questions regarding charging for investigational drugs.

Expanded access is designed for seriously ill patients who have exhausted other options.  The last thing a patient suffering from a serious or life-threatening condition needs is red tape. For many years, FDA has dedicated staff to assist physicians and patients in navigating our system. We expect these important steps will help us continue our efforts to serve patients in need and to advance public health.

Richard A. Moscicki, M.D., is FDA’s Deputy Center Director for Science Operations, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

CBER Laboratories in the Life Sciences-Biodefense Complex

By: Carolyn A. Wilson, Ph.D.

Wise management of research programs means more than selecting projects that will yield the most scientific information but also making sure that we are making wise use of the dollars we allot for research.

Carolyn A. WilsonThat’s why FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) thinks strategically when it plans research programs by the more than 70 principal investigators who work in our two-year-old laboratories in the Life Sciences-Biodefense Complex at FDA’s White Oak campus.

We ask ourselves how we can most efficiently – and cost-effectively – obtain the answers to our scientific questions that our regulators will need to achieve their mission of ensuring the safety, purity, and potency of biological products.  Products regulated by CBER include vaccines, allergenics (allergy diagnostics and treatments), cellular, tissue, and gene therapy products, and blood and blood products.

To sharpen our research planning we recently undertook a major evaluation of our center’s scientific and administrative strategies and programs with the assistance of an outside consulting firm.

The findings have enabled us to refine  our strategies for wringing the most new knowledge from every dollar we spend on regulatory science – the science of developing new tools, standards and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality and performance of FDA-regulated products. These refinements to CBER’s research strategy include:

  • A Resource Committee that manages CBER’s annual budget, as well as a Regulatory Science Council that develops center-wide goals, guides office-level objectives, and oversees all research activities. These two councils will increase overall transparency of decision-making, make sure that research is prioritized, and aim to make budget planning more timely and responsive to our mission.
  • More direct control of funds by individual CBER offices and earlier allocation of that funding, and annual peer review of 25 percent of existing and new projects to ensure accountability for how they are run.
  • Systems to increase the transparency of CBER research and research funding, enhance management decisions, and facilitate tracking of funding allocated to activities and projects.
  • Elevating the culture of science through monthly presentations highlighting the public health impact and mission relevance of CBER research; biannual CBER-wide Science Symposium, providing opportunities for communication and potentially improved collaboration across all CBER research projects; and, enhanced prominence of CBER research fellows in the research enterprise.
jars of vegetables

Faulty home food preservation is one potential source of botulism. FDA scientists are developing methods that will help manufacturers to make a vaccine that will prevent this bacterial illness.

These research and administration refinements are helping us better identify and prepare for tomorrow’s needs.  And when you consider the approximately 70-80 research programs we have underway, we’re doing a lot. A few examples include:

  • Studying botulism toxoids (inactivated illness-causing chemicals released by bacteria) to support development of the first vaccine to prevent this potentially fatal infection. CBER scientists are designing new tests to predict what vaccine approaches may be protective. These tests may also help screen vaccines that protect against other toxins such as those from anthrax, as well as the plant-derived toxin ricin.
  • Determining the critical immune events that provide protective immunity to intracellular microbes (bacteria and parasites that live inside human cells). Based on this, FDA scientists will develop new measurements to predict protection that may help evaluate new vaccines for these microbes.

    Girl sneezing in a field of flowers.

    Allergies can turn nature walks into annoying sneezing fits. FDA scientists are developing new tools to help manufacturers produce more potent allergy shots and enhance their safety.

  • Developing new tools and data to help manufacturers produce more potent allergy shots and enhance their safety.
  • Helping to develop a test for cow intestine to ensure heparin harvested from this tissue is not contaminated with the agent causing the bovine transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE, also known as “mad cow disease”), a known risk to humans. This would help to ensure a safe, reliable, domestic source of heparin, which is now obtained mostly from China.
  • Developing new methods and technologies for rapid-testing detection and characterization of emerging infectious pathogens that threaten the safety of tissue and tissue-based products. In the course of developing these technologies, the lab has found previously unidentified microbial contaminants in archived tissues used for these studies. These findings provide preliminary evidence to support the potential for application of rapid test technologies in evaluation of emerging infectious disease transmission risks associated with the implantation, transplantation, infusion, or transfer of human tissue.

As CBER continues to advance regulatory science in its Life Sciences-BioDefense Complex, our projects will adapt to new challenges that the science of biologics will inevitably pose to FDA. And CBER will address those challenges, keeping in mind both the public health and our fiduciary responsibility to make every research dollar count.

Carolyn A. Wilson, Ph.D., is Associate Director for Research at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

Globalization and FDA’s New Partnerships to Ensure Product Safety

By: Howard Sklamberg

Globalization is posing challenges for public health. For FDA, part of that challenge is the ever-increasing volume and complexity of FDA-regulated products coming to America’s shores.

Howard SklambergIn fiscal year 2015, there were more than 34 million shipments of FDA-regulated products into the United States, up from just 15 million shipments a decade ago. These products are handled by 130,000 importers, and are manufactured, processed, or packaged at more than 300,000 foreign facilities.

We know this global trade expansion has ramifications for our nation’s public health. We also know we cannot be the inspectors for the world. Hence, we need to effectively direct our resources in a risk-based manner as we grapple with this tremendous volume of imported goods.

How? One way is to identify foreign regulators whom we can rely upon to partner with in verifying that safety standards are being met and then construct an approach that will meet the requirements of multiple regulatory jurisdictions. We are currently engaged in three innovative programs that meet this challenge.

The Medical Device Single Audit Program

The Medical Device Single Audit Program, or MDSAP, is an international approach to the auditing and monitoring of the manufacture of medical devices to ensure their safety and efficacy. This audit program will allow a single regulatory audit of a medical device manufacturer’s quality management system that satisfies the requirements of multiple regulatory jurisdictions.

Currently, five nations – Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and the U. S. – are participating in the MDSAP Pilot. It began 18 months ago and will run through the end of 2016. The program’s goals include:

  • Enabling regulatory oversight of medical device manufacturers’ quality management systems;  and,
  •  Promoting more efficient use of regulatory resources through work-sharing and mutual acceptance among regulators.

Mutual Recognition Agreements

In 2014, FDA launched the Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI), a strategic collaboration between the FDA and the EU Member States. The goal of the program is to determine if the FDA and EU can agree to recognize each other’s drug Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspections, a potentially time-saving approach.

If successful, we could rely upon EU experts to inspect facilities within their own borders, a more practical way of overseeing the large number of drug manufacturing sites outside of the United States. And it would be similarly more practical if the EU relied on FDA experts to inspect facilities within the United States.

Both the EU and the FDA are in the process of evaluating each other’s processes. The EU has visited several of FDA’s district offices in the United States and one drug laboratory and evaluated the work they do. The FDA has a different challenge since each country in the EU has at least one inspectorate, and in Germany, each state has their own inspectorate. To date, FDA has observed eight audits – in Sweden, Greece, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Czech Republic, and the United Kingdom – and will continue to observe audits of other Member States this year and in 2017.

Food Safety Systems Recognition

Preventing problems at relevant points along the global food supply chain can be a daunting job. FDA is soliciting help by leveraging foreign food safety systems that are similar to our own.

The agency’s Systems Recognition program determines whether another country has comparable regulatory programs and public health outcomes to what we have in place in the U.S.

A major advantage of Systems Recognition is that it allows FDA to be more risk-based in its oversight of imported food and we can more wisely plan our overall inspection activities, including foreign facility inspections, import field exams, and import sampling.

Thus far, we’ve completed: New Zealand and the U.S. signed a Systems Recognition Agreement (in 2012) and recently another agreement was signed with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

What’s Next? 

The three initiatives I’ve briefly outlined represent the best of FDA innovation and expertise in grappling with the increasing amount of imported FDA-regulated products. Our work will focus on a continued careful reliance on trusted foreign partners; a move away from duplicative work; more risk-based inspections; better data; and the minimization of public health risks globally.

Howard Sklamberg is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory
Operations and Policy

Celebrating a Year of the Expedited Access Pathway Program for Medical Devices

By: Erin Cutts, B.S., Owen Faris, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is committed to supporting patient access to high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices of public health importance — as quickly as possible.

Erin Cutts

Erin Cutts, B.S., Policy Lead, Q-Submission Program (acting), Office of Device Evaluation in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

For patients suffering from life-threatening conditions and who have few, if any, options, this access becomes critical. About a year ago, FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health created the voluntary Expedited Access Pathway (EAP) program to facilitate the development of and access to new technology for these patients who desperately need them.

The EAP program represents a collaborative approach to help manufacturers with product development and evaluation. Products in the EAP program ultimately undergo either Premarket Approval (PMA) or de novo review.

Other device programs may focus specifically on premarket review once a submission has been made. But EAP allows FDA and sponsors to focus on the early stages of product development, which can be helpful for new products that address the unmet — and critical — life-threatening patient needs. In fact, we think the EAP program will have most impact when sponsors request EAP designation prior to beginning an IDE pivotal study. That way we can work with the sponsor to make sure the data being collected in the pivotal study are appropriate to include in the device’s manufacturing submission.

Owen Faris

Owen Faris, Ph.D., Clinical Trials Director, Office of Device Evaluation in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

For the devices in the EAP program, FDA, including senior leadership, maintains a high level of interaction with sponsors and provides advice on efficient device development. What does this mean? While working with the device sponsor, FDA carefully considers the risks and benefits of the new device, as well as the risks of delaying a new therapy to patients who have few or no other options. It may be appropriate to accept more initial uncertainty for devices in the EAP program so that an important technology can reach patients sooner. This uncertainty can be further addressed by collecting additional data once the device is on the market.

Jeffrey Shuren

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Over the past year, FDA has made 29 decisions on requests for EAP designation: 17 have been accepted into the program, and 12 have been denied. These decisions were typically made in 30 days.

EAP designation requests have included devices for the heart, brain, and kidneys that are manufactured by small start-up companies and large corporations. We expect that our resources and focus on these promising technologies under the EAP program will allow them to be evaluated and enter the market more quickly, therefore providing options to the patients who need them most.

Projects should meet certain criteria to qualify for the EAP program:

  • The device should treat or diagnose a life threatening or irreversibly debilitating disease or condition;
  • The device should address an unmet need, which is usually shown by comparing the device to other available options; and,
  • The company should have a Data Development Plan outlining what will be included in future submissions to FDA. This plan helps FDA and the company agree on the high level items up front to prevent confusion and delays later in the FDA review process.

As the program has grown in the past year, we’ve  learned that companies who benefit most from this program are those that have a preliminary proof of principle for how their device works, but haven’t undertaken formal studies to support future submissions to FDA. For these companies, discussing their Data Development Plan with the FDA and agreeing on a roadmap to their marketing application and beyond is an important part of a successful review.

So what’s next? As we look forward to the EAP program’s second year,we remain excited about the possibilities it presents – and to be working with industry to quickly bring new and innovative devices to patients.

Erin Cutts, B.S., is Policy Lead, Q-Submission Program (acting), Office of Device Evaluation in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Owen Faris, Ph.D., is Clinical Trials Director, Office of Device Evaluation in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., is Director of FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.