FDA Works with China to Ensure Medical-Product Safety

By: Christopher Hickey, Ph.D.

Americans benefit greatly from medical products produced by other countries. Approximately 40 percent of finished drugs in the United States come from overseas, as well as more than 50 percent of all medical devices. About 80 percent of the manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients are located outside the United States.

Christopher Hickey

Christopher Hickey, Ph.D., testifies April 3, 2014.

However, this rapid globalization of commerce presents challenges to regulators who oversee the safety and quality of medical products. Many of these challenges manifest themselves in China. As FDA’s country director for the People’s Republic of China, I testified on April 3, 2014 before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, an advisory panel created by Congress, on our work to ensure the safety and quality of medical products produced in China and imported into the United States.

China is the source of a large and growing volume of imported foods, medical products and ingredients. In the years spanning fiscal years 2007 and 2013, the total number of shipments of FDA-regulated products from China to the United States almost quadrupled.

The challenges we see in China mirror those we see in other countries with developing regulatory systems. These issues include problems with data integrity, inadequate implementation of quality systems in manufacturing, and inconsistent regulatory oversight, among others.

As China’s role on the global stage expands, FDA has significantly increased drug and medical device inspections there, but we need to continue to strengthen our efforts. FDA is currently working to use Congressionally-appropriated funding to increase from eight to 27 the number of U.S. staff it posts in China. Visa issues that arose with the Chinese government over new FDA staff assigned there were addressed during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Beijing in December, and FDA continues its work to post new staff in Beijing in the coming months.

FDA recognizes that strategic engagement in China starts first and foremost with Chinese regulators. China’s Food and Drug Administration, or CFDA, is responsible for the regulation of food, drugs, and devices for domestic distribution in China, and for regulation of certain exported drugs and medical devices.

Senate Committee Hearing, April 3, 2014

Christopher Hickey, Ph.D., testifies before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

FDA has established a strong working relationship with CFDA. Our office has trained hundreds of Chinese inspectors in areas that include inspecting for good manufacturing practices and assessing the quality of data from sites that conduct clinical trials. Experts from FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health now meet regularly with their counterparts from CFDA under the auspices of the International Medical Devices Regulatory Forum. These investments will pay long-term dividends for the American people: a stronger Chinese regulatory system can only strengthen FDA’s efforts to promote and protect U.S. public health.

Finally, in the area of inspections and enforcement, CFDA inspectors now regularly observe FDA inspections in China. And since 2012, FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations has worked closely with CFDA to fight against Internet-based, illegal distribution into the U.S. of falsified, counterfeit and adulterated drugs.

FDA’s priorities in China match its global priorities: we work to ensure the safety and efficacy of FDA-regulated products. Manufacturers are best situated to make certain that appropriate processes are in place to ensure safety and quality in production. Regulatory bodies should hold companies accountable for lapses in the production process. Inspections and testing are important tools in that process, but they must be used as part of a larger system that emphasizes a preventive, approach to the production of safe, effective, high-quality medical products.

And in our globalized world, it’s increasingly important that regulatory partners work together to ensure the safety of products as they move through increasingly complex supply chains. Patients and consumers – whether in Beijing or Boston – deserve no less.

Christopher Hickey, Ph.D., is FDA’s Country Director for the People’s Republic of China.

For more information, please visit this Web link:

China’s Healthcare Sector, Drug Safety, and the U.S.-China Trade in Medical Products

FDA Seeks Comment on Proposed Health IT Strategy That Aims to Promote Innovation

By: Bakul Patel

Health information technology (IT) offers many benefits to the American people and health care providers. Health IT products, technologies and services can prevent medical errors, improve efficiency and health care quality, reduce costs and increase consumer engagement. They also can help with identification of, and quick response to, public health threats, and further health research. But while health IT benefits are far-reaching, technology can bring risks to patients if not designed, developed, implemented, or maintained properly.

Bakul PatelI’m glad to share that FDA, along with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), has recently released a report outlining our proposed framework for health IT. This report fulfills the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA) requirement that we develop a proposed strategy and recommendations on an appropriate, risk-based regulatory framework pertaining to health IT that promotes innovation, protects patient safety and avoids regulatory duplication.

We’ve developed a proposed framework that fulfills this requirement and would allow Americans to reap the benefits of health IT. This is a growing field with many benefits. For example, electronic health records allow providers to access accurate patient data. And computer-aided detection software can analyze an electrocardiogram (EKG) signal and help determine if a person is having a heart attack, helping providers give timely treatment.

In health IT, the best approach is a risk-based approach. We believe risk assessment should primarily focus on the function of the health IT product, not its platform. So we’ve identified three categories of health IT. The first is administrative and relates to functions such as billing and scheduling. This area has minimal risks for patient safety and does not require additional oversight.

The second relates to health management functions, including provider order entry, electronic communication and patient identification. In this category, we’ve identified four priority areas that can be scaled and applied throughout the health IT product lifecycle:

•              Promote the use of quality management principles;

•              Identify, develop, and adopt standards and best practices;

•              Leverage conformity assessment tools; and

•              Create an environment of learning and continual improvement.

Since safety risks for products in the health management category are sufficiently low, even if a technology in this category meets the definition of a medical device, FDA does not intend to focus oversight on it. Rather, FDA intends to focus our attention on the third category, which relates to medical device functions, such as computer-aided detection software and radiation treatment software. Such products are already FDA’s focus because they generally pose greater risk to patients than the products in the other two categories.

We’re not recommending that new areas of FDA oversight are needed.

Along with ONC and FCC, we will continue to develop this framework through public engagement, especially in fostering the further development of a quality-focused culture for health IT. We do not believe that regulation should be, or needs to be, the first approach used to reach this outcome. The agencies are holding a three day public workshop on May 13, 14, and 15 at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to discuss the framework and its components. We encourage consumers, providers, and health care organizations to register for the workshop and to submit comments. Health IT has brought, and continues to bring, many benefits and we are looking forward to engaging with you on this important topic.

Bakul Patel is senior policy advisor in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

For more information please visit these Web links:

FDASIA Health IT Report

Public Workshop – Proposed Risk-Based Regulatory Framework and Strategy for Health Information Technology, May 13-15, 2014

Proposed Risk-Based Regulatory Framework and Strategy for Health Information Technology Report; Notice to Public of Availability of the Report and Web Site Location; Request for Comments

FDA Wants Your Perspective on Clinical Trial Demographic Data

By: Jonca Bull, M.D.

When designing clinical trials, it is essential to test the safety and effectiveness of medical products in the people they are meant to treat. Although FDA’s policies, guidances, and regulations reflect decades of agency efforts to foster the participation of diverse patient populations in clinical trials, more work is required.

Jonca Bull (2488 x 3738)FDA is seeking your comments on this important public health issue. On Tuesday, April 1, 2014, we’re holding a public hearing on the challenges of collecting and analyzing information on demographic subgroups—including sex, race, ethnicity and age—in clinical trials for FDA-regulated medical products.

We’re looking for ideas and viewpoints from our stakeholders—from clinical researchers, academia, industry, health care professionals and patient advocates. As director of FDA’s Office of Minority Health, I’m inviting you to attend this hearing in person or online, or to submit your comments before or after the hearing on issues that are vital to you.

Your perspectives will be critical as we develop our FDA action plan for improving public health across all demographic groups. The action plan will include recommendations on ways to enhance the collection and analysis of information about the sex, race, ethnicity, and age of clinical trial participants in applications that medical product developers submit for FDA review and approval. We are also seeking ideas and views about how to improve the communication of crucial information on medical products to patients, health care professionals and researchers.

Recently, in Section 907 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012, Congress asked FDA to produce a report on this topic and to follow it up with an action plan. In the development of the report, FDA carefully examined 72 product applications approved in 2011.

We determined that the statutes, regulations and policies we have in place generally give drug developers a sound framework for providing information in their applications on the inclusion and analysis of these demographic groups. We also found that medical product developers generally are describing the demographic profiles of their clinical trial participants, and most applications submitted to FDA include analyses of these demographics.

However, we recognize that more can be done. So, as part of the process of developing FDA’s action plan, we’re holding this public hearing to get your views on these and related issues. We can’t do this without your help, so we hope you’ll join us at the hearing in person or online on Tuesday, April 1!

Jonca Bull, M.D., is Director of FDA’s Office of Minority Health

Rare Diseases in Children Pose Unique Challenges

By: Gayatri R. Rao, M.D., J.D.

Rare diseases – those that affect fewer than 200,000 people in the United States but collectively affect 30 million Americans – are often chronic, progressive, debilitating, and life-threatening. Because most are genetic in origin, they disproportionately affect children. The agency is strongly committed to advancing safe and effective therapies for these young patients.

Gayatri R. Rao, M.D., J.D., is Director of FDA's Office of Orphan Products DevelopmentIn recognition of International Rare Disease Day on February 28, 2014, we are focusing on pediatric rare diseases.

While developing products for any rare disease poses challenges, in part because of the small patient populations, developing products for children raises unique considerations.  Historically, pediatric care has involved the use of off-label therapies that are unstudied or under-studied in children. For example, pediatric drug dosing often involved adjusting adult doses based on a child’s decreased weight, without considering potential age-based differences in drug metabolism and toxicities. Similarly, many medical devices used in children have been adapted – in homes, clinics, and operating rooms – to solve problems quickly, with little time to consider the long term consequences of a device’s effect on a growing child’s physiology and development.

And while incentives currently exist to promote the development of products for pediatric rare diseases, development in this area continues to lag due to the compounded challenges associated with studying both a rare and pediatric population.

In recognition of these challenges, Congress directed FDA to issue a report and strategic plan focused on accelerating and encouraging the development of therapies for pediatric rare diseases. In response, FDA convened a series of public meetings from January 6 – 8, 2014 to discuss the many challenges in developing treatments for rare diseases, specifically for children with rare diseases, and how to overcome those challenges.  These meetings generated a great deal of interest in the rare disease and pediatric communities. Hundreds of people attended either in person or via webcast and represented a wide swath of these overlapping communities, including patients, academicians, researchers, clinicians, industry, and governmental agencies, many of whom were noted experts in their respective fields.

There were frank, robust and productive conversations on a wide range of topics. A few common themes emerged, especially the important role that patient advocacy groups, including parents of pediatric patients, play in furthering drug development, such as participating in the development of robust patient registries and natural history studies, and providing their perspectives on the risks and benefits of specific treatments. Another common theme was the need for strong collaborations between patients, researchers, industry, and government.

My office, the Office of Orphan Products Development (OOPD), is now coordinating a cross-agency effort with Center for Drugs Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), and the Office of Pediatric Therapeutics (OPT) to develop a report and strategic plan to encourage and accelerate the development of therapies for pediatric rare diseases. The goal of this report is to incorporate the valuable insights gained from these public meetings to inform and tailor ongoing and future agency initiatives to more effectively advance the development of such therapies.

OOPD, in collaboration with CDER, is also launching a web-based educational tool for rare disease patients, advocacy groups, researchers and industry on various FDA-related topics. Current topics include the essentials of interacting with FDA and expanded access to products under development. The goal is to continue to add to this educational resource over time. For the new educational tool, as well as additional information, visit the OOPD Educational Resources web page. In addition, FDA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will jointly celebrate Rare Disease Day with a one-day program at NIH Masur Auditorium highlighting various rare diseases programs, research activities, and initiatives. For more information about this event that is free and open to the public, and available via webcast, visit the OOPD web page.

The needs of rare disease patients and the pediatric population are complex and pose challenging issues. We are committed to working with the pediatric rare disease community to face those challenges head-on and to accelerate the development safe and effective therapies for these diseases.

Gayatri R. Rao, M.D., J.D., is Director of FDA’s Office of Orphan Products Development

Setting the Bar for Blood Glucose Meter Performance

By: Courtney Lias

Courtney Lias is Director of the Division of Chemistry and Toxicology Devices within the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Devices at FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological HealthMany of the nearly 19 million Americans diagnosed with diabetes must monitor their blood glucose (sugar) frequently throughout the day using an at-home meter to make sure that their blood glucose is within a safe range. The ability to measure blood glucose at home has given people with this serious and chronic condition the ability to better control their blood sugar and thus avoid potential complications.

In the last 10 years there has been much advancement in the development of glucose meters. They are now smaller, require a smaller blood sample for each test and produce faster results.  However, their accuracy has improved little.

At FDA’s public meeting in March 2010 on this topic, the clinical and patient communities challenged the agency to improve performance of glucose meters. Feedback gathered from that meeting directly informed the creation of two draft guidance documents released this week. These documents set forth recommendations, which are justified to help ensure that these important devices are designed to be more accurate and reliable for the patients who need them. To address this need, this week we are proposing new recommendations for labeling, meter performance evaluation, manufacturing controls, and cleaning and disinfection procedures to help improve the accuracy and performance of blood glucose meters.

FDA recognized the need to optimize the safe use of blood glucose meters in two distinct settings: self-monitoring using devices purchased over-the-counter, and use in a clinical setting by health care professionals. FDA believes that by distinguishing where these devices are used, they can be better designed to meet the needs of their intended populations and ensure greater safety and efficacy.

Historically, devices used in these two settings have been studied using the same methods and standards. However, it has become increasingly clear that meters used in these different settings have unique characteristics and different design specifications. For example, critically ill patients in health care settings may have physiological variables, like abnormal oxygen levels, that could interfere with the accuracy of the blood glucose meter. Patients who use over-the-counter glucose meters and test strips at home vary in age, how much they know about how to use blood glucose tests, and other critical factors that might affect the  accurate use of the device.

To distinguish between FDA recommendations for blood glucose meters used in health-care facilities, and those intended for self-monitoring by lay-persons, the agency is issuing separate draft guidances for each one, that is:

  • prescription-use blood glucose meters, for use in point-of-care professional health-care settings, and
  • blood glucose devices purchased over-the-counter, intended for self-monitoring by lay-persons.

We believe that these recommendations will help ensure that glucose meters meet critical standards for accuracy in the hands of people with diabetes, who rely on them to manage their disease. Please help us in this effort by providing specific comments to these draft guidance documents to let us know if you agree with our recommendations or whether you have suggestions to further improve them.

Improving the quality of blood glucose meters will not solve all challenges for those who live with diabetes, but it may help millions of people to avoid complications and better achieve their health goals.

Courtney Lias is Director of the Division of Chemistry and Toxicology Devices within the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Devices at FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

We Moved Forward on Many Fronts This Year

By: Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.

At the FDA, the agency that I’ve had the privilege to lead for the past five years, I am gratified to report that we have a lot to be proud of this year. In fact, this past year’s accomplishments on behalf of public health have been as substantial as any in FDA’s recent history.

Margaret Hamburg, M.D.We moved significantly forward, for example, in creating a system that will reduce foodborne illness, approving novel medical products in cutting-edge areas of science, and continuing to develop our new tobacco control program. We worked successfully with Congress and with regulated industry to reach agreement on a number of difficult issues, while continuing to use the law to the full extent possible to protect consumers and advance public health.

While there were many significant actions and events to recognize, below are some of the highlights of 2013.

In the foods area, there were many new actions this year that will have a long-standing impact on improving our food supply for consumers. Throughout the year we have been proposing new rules to reach the goals set forth by the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). These science-based standards will help ensure the safety of all foods produced for our market, whether they come from the U.S. or from other countries.

We also took important steps towards reducing artery-clogging trans fat in processed foods, and understanding the health impact of arsenic in rice. With a final rule that defines when baked goods, pastas and other foods can be considered free of gluten, people with celiac disease can have confidence in foods labeled “gluten free.” And we are studying whether adding caffeine to foods may have an effect on the health of young people and others.

There have likewise been many accomplishments in advancing the safety and effectiveness of medical products. We worked closely with Congress on the recently enacted Drug Quality and Security Act, which contains important provisions relating to the oversight of human drug compounding. The law also has provisions to help secure the drug supply chain so that we can better help protect consumers from the dangers of counterfeit, stolen, contaminated, or otherwise harmful drugs.

Using tools provided by last year’s landmark Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), we are continuing to improve the speed and efficiency of medical product reviews, including those involving low-cost, high quality generic drugs and innovative new medical devices. The average number of days it takes for pre-market review of a new medical device has been reduced by about one-third since 2010. The percentage of pre-market approval applications that we approve has increased since then, after steadily decreasing each year since 2004.

We launched a powerful new tool to accelerate the development and review of “breakthrough therapies,” allowing FDA to expedite development of a drug or biologic (such as a vaccine) if preliminary clinical evidence indicates that it may offer a substantial improvement over available therapies for patients with serious or life-threatening diseases. This offers real opportunities to get promising drugs more quickly to patients who need them. In fact, using this new approach, FDA recently approved two advanced treatments for rare types of cancer and one for hepatitis C. We have also strengthened efforts to ensure product quality, increased protection of the drug supply chain, and reduced drug shortages.

We confronted the growing misuse of powerful opioid pain relievers by advising manufacturers on how to make these drugs harder to abuse with formulations that are more difficult to crush for inhalation or dissolve for injection. And we recommended that hydrocodone combination products be subject to stricter controls to help prevent abuse. 

We took an important step towards fighting the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria by implementing a voluntary plan to phase out the use of antibiotics to enhance the growth of food-producing animals, and to move any remaining therapeutic uses of these drugs under the oversight of a licensed veterinarian. So-called “production” use is considered a contributing factor in the development of bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotics used in human medical treatment.

In many areas of our work we are supporting the emerging field of personalized medicine. Advances in sequencing the human genome and greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms of disease, combined with increasingly powerful computers and other technologies, are making it possible to tailor medical treatments to the specific characteristics, needs, and preferences of individual patients.

Many cancer drugs today are increasingly used with companion diagnostic tests that can help determine whether a patient will respond to the drug based on the genetic characteristics of the patient’s tumor. In May, FDA approved two drugs and companion diagnostic testing for the treatment of certain melanoma patients with particular genetic mutations.

Advances in science and technology are also seen in the creation of new medical devices. For example, 3-D printing - the making of a three-dimensional solid object from a digital model – was once considered the wave of the future. But in February, FDA cleared for marketing a device created by 3-D printing – a plate used in a surgical repair of the skull that is built specifically for the individual patient.

While we have worked hard to get therapies to patients, we are at the same time using the tools available to us to remove unsafe and dangerous products from the market. In November, we used new enforcement tools provided by the food-safety law to act quickly in the face of a potential danger to public health presented by certain OxyElite Pro products. These supplements had been linked to dozens of cases of acute liver failure and hepatitis. After FDA took action, the manufacturer agreed to recall and destroy the supplements.

Finally, we made significant progress in implementing the letter and spirit of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. We have signed contracts with numerous state and local authorities to enforce the ban on the sale of tobacco to children and teens; conducted close to 240,000 inspections; and written more than 12,100 warning letters to retailers. And, in the first quarter of 2014 we will launch a public education campaign aimed at reducing the number of young people who use tobacco products.

All of us take great pride in the skill and vigor with which we overcame the year’s challenges and new demands. And so, as the year draws to a close, I extend my gratitude to the employees at the FDA who work tirelessly on behalf of the American public year in and year out. To all of our stakeholders, my heartfelt wishes for a joyous holiday season and a safe and healthy 2014.

Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., is the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration

Gene Sequencing Devices Are ‘Next Generation’

By: Jeffrey Shuren, M.D.

Just for a moment, imagine a scenario in which you have an illness that has eluded diagnosis. The usual suspects have been ruled out and no one knows exactly what’s making you sick. 

Using medical devices that FDA has now cleared for marketing, a laboratory could sequence your genome to look for any abnormalities in your genes that could be responsible for your illness. This information would be relayed to your doctor and used to determine the course of treatment.

This is called “next generation sequencing” because it’s another step towards a future in personalized medical care that few of us could have envisioned even a decade ago. 

First, let’s define some terms. A genome is the complete set of genetic information in your body. This information is held in sequences of DNA, and gene sequencing from your whole blood allows laboratories to look for genetic variations that could hold the key to the causes of disease and the right treatment. 

FDA is clearing the marketing of four gene-sequencing devices. Two of the devices make up the first test system authorized for marketing that allows laboratories to sequence a patient’s genome for any purpose. The software compares the patient’s sequence to a normal human genome sequence used for reference and identifies the differences. 

The other two devices are used to detect changes in the CFTR gene, which can result in cystic fibrosis, a disease inherited through a faulty CFTR gene from both parents. More than 10 million Americans are carriers of cystic fibrosis (they have only one faulty copy), and one of these tests could be used to identify men and women with the faulty CFTR gene. The second test looks for other, perhaps unexpected, mutations in the CFTR gene that could be having an impact on the patient’s health. 

Regulatory science – the science of developing new tools, standards and approaches to assess the safety, effectiveness, and quality of FDA-regulated products – played a key role in FDA’s readiness to assess these revolutionary devices. Knowing the potential of next generation sequencing to advance personalized medicine, FDA researched next generation sequencers to understand how they work and their likely limitations. By the time Illumina (the San Diego-based biotechnology company that developed the next generation sequencing devices authorized for marketing) walked in the door, FDA had the expertise and tools needed to timely review the submissions for the next generation sequencers. 

The regulatory science development efforts that contributed to the timely marketing authorization of these devices will continue to help advance this important technology. We are also collaborating with the National Institute of Standards and Technology – a federal agency that works to advance measurement science, standards and technology – and other agencies to develop human genome materials that can serve as reference materials so that other labs and researchers can assess the performance of their gene sequencers quickly, effectively, and at a lower cost.

We are working on many fronts to achieve the promise of personalized medicine, so that patients can get medical treatments that are right for them. Clearing the marketing of these four devices moves us closer to that goal.

For further perspective, read a new article in the New England Journal of Medicine by FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. and National Institutes of Health Director Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.

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

FDA Brings Patients Into the Process

By: Michelle McMurry-Heath, M.D., Ph.D. 

What do patients really want? 

At the FDA, we ask that question every day and in all kinds of contexts. Earlier this year, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) began to explore new ways to identify and incorporate the patient voice into our decision-making on medical devices. 

We’re calling this effort the Patient Preference Initiative. As part of this effort, we held a public workshop the past two days with patients, caregivers, health care providers, researchers, and industry to discuss ways to incorporate patient preferences as we weigh the risks and benefits of the products we regulate both before and after the product goes to market. 

In trying to incorporate patient preferences into our regulatory decisions, it’s important to know how to accurately and reliably measure their preferences for treating and diagnosing their conditions. So, we’re also trying to advance the tools and methods that could be used to do so. 

For example, there is a risk of injury with many medical devices. How much of a risk is acceptable to a patient in the context of the potential benefits of the device? If patients enter a clinical trial, how much of a chance are they willing to take on an unproven treatment? If a device could greatly improve a patient’s health, but is not portable or cannot be used at home, would a patient find this too limiting? If a device has new-found risks but is the only one of its kind on the market, should it be recalled? 

In appropriate cases, we foresee approving devices for which a fully-informed subset of patients would accept the risks as weighed against the benefits, if patients and their practitioners can be provided with the information they need to make their own well-informed decision and the information can be presented in a manner that can be understood by the practitioners and patients. 

At the workshop, we invited attendees to actively explore such issues as clinical trial design and ways to facilitate getting new, safe and effective, innovative devices out to the patients who may need them. Our panels weighed in on such questions as: 

  • How do we integrate patient preferences into clinical trial design?
  • How can we build partnerships to collect this information?
  • How can we use data on patient preference for post-market and compliance issues?
  • What disease areas or device types are best suited for the patient preference approach?
  • Which diseases or device types are best suited for patient preference input?
  • How can we ensure that patients, families and caregivers are well informed so that they understand the choices they have and the decisions they are making? 

We also announced that we will be establishing a new Patient Engagement Panel as part of our Medical Device Advisory Committee to provide advice on issues important to patients, such as more understandable labeling and the use of medical devices at home. 

Throughout the workshop, it was clear that determining the benefits and risks of medical devices is one of the most important things we do. 

In 2012, the FDA published a document to help industry understand the key factors we consider when making benefit-risk determinations for certain medical devices. Importantly, it discusses collecting patient-centric metrics to measure benefit and ways of measuring a patient’s tolerance for risks. 

But the last two days have been all about the patients who may need these products, the caregivers who would be helping patients use them, and the health care professionals who may prescribe them. What do they want? What do they need? 

The FDA is committed to giving patients in the United States access to safe and effective medical devices of high quality and we work hard to improve the predictability, consistency and transparency of the pre-market review process. We’re pleased at the progress we’ve made over the last two days as part of our effort to invite patients into the regulatory process, and we look forward to more close collaboration with patients in the future. 

Patients, after all, are at the core of our mission and the focus of our vision. 

Michelle McMurry-Heath, M.D., Ph.D., is the Associate Director for Science at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Identifying Medical Devices Will Strengthen Safety

By: Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D. 

Medical devices are an important part of everyday life for many people. Some are used to diagnose, others to treat patients. Some are implanted in the body. Some are used by doctors in hospitals, while others are used by patients in their home or at work. 

Nevertheless, it may surprise you that unlike consumer products and medications, many medical devices do not have a unique identifier that unambiguously distinguishes one product from another. 

This is about to change. FDA is implementing a new system that will provide a consistent and standard way to identify medical devices throughout their distribution and use. 

It is called the Unique Device Identification (UDI) system. Most devices may be required to have a code on their label and packaging, and for certain devices, on the product itself, in plain text and a machine-readable format, like a bar code. This code will correspond to the specific model or version of a device and will include production information, such as the lot number and expiration date. 

It will also provide a link to a publicly available database – called the Global Unique Device Identification Database – where you can find information about some of the devices’ key characteristics, such as model and brand – but no identifying patient information will be stored there. 

FDA worked with the health care community and the device industry to develop a system that will provide a clear way of documenting device use in electronic health records and clinical information systems. 

Companies, health care professionals and patients will be able to report medical device adverse events more accurately. And recalls will be faster and more effective. When there are critical issues with a medical device, the UDI could be specified in safety alerts and recall notices. Health care professionals would be able to rapidly identify patients who have or are using the recalled device. At the same time, similar devices not implicated would not be taken out of use in a broad attempt to remove potential hazards. 

Implementation of the UDI system will take place over several years, beginning with devices that pose higher risks to patients – such as heart valves and hip prostheses (also known as artificial hips). Other devices, such as powered wheelchairs and blood glucose meters, will follow. 

This is a landmark step for FDA. UDI may be an acronym for Unique Device Identification, but what it really stands for is better patient health. 

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

The path toward a risk-based regulatory framework for health IT

By: Jodi Daniel, Bakul Patel and Matthew Quinn 

Yesterday, the Health IT Policy Committee (HITPC) accepted and approved recommendations from the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) working group for a risk-based regulatory framework for health information technology. The working group’s recommendations suggest a scope for an IT framework, risk and innovation criteria, and approaches for avoiding regulatory duplication. 

Only six short months ago, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC), and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) kicked off the FDASIA workgroup of the HITPC to provide stakeholder input into a report on a risk-based regulatory framework that promotes safety and innovation and reduces regulatory duplication, consistent with section 618 of FDASIA. This provision permitted the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to form a workgroup in order to obtain broad stakeholder input from across the health care, IT, patients and innovation spectrum. The FDA, ONC, and FCC actively participated in these discussions with stakeholders from across the health care, IT, patients and innovation spectrum. The working group met more than 28 times, and yesterday FDASIA workgroup chair, David Bates, presented the final recommendations to the HITPC. 

In recognition of this important milestone, and on behalf of the three agencies, we want to express our deep appreciation to the members of the workgroup (and a special thanks to David Bates) for committing themselves to this aggressive timeline and delivering a suite of thoughtful recommendations.

Next Steps

As the FDASIA workgroup’s efforts conclude, the agencies’ efforts now intensify. Over the next few months the FDA, ONC, and FCC will review the HIT Policy Committee’s recommendations and the public comments submitted through the docket we opened on regulations.gov. Using these thoughtful inputs, ONC, FDA, and FCC will work closely together to develop a report (by the January 2014 statutory deadline) that proposes an overarching health IT regulatory strategy and provides recommendations on ways to appropriately promote innovation, protect patient safety, and avoid regulatory duplication. 

We recognize the complex nature of health IT and its importance to our nation’s health.  Therefore, we intend to provide an opportunity for public comment and additional stakeholder input on the draft report following its publication in January 2014. We look forward to continued collaboration with all stakeholders as we advance our thinking on this important topic. 

Jodi Daniel is Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT

Bakul Patel is Senior Policy Advisor, FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Matthew Quinn is Director of Healthcare Initiatives, Federal Communications Commission (FCC)