Why FDA Should Oversee Laboratory Developed Tests

By: Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H.

Today FDA is issuing a report that illustrates the real and potential harms to patients and to public health from certain laboratory developed tests (LDTs) – tests that are designed, manufactured and used in a single laboratory.

Dr. Peter LurieWhen FDA first began regulating medical devices under the Medical Device Amendments in the 1970s, we chose not to enforce applicable regulatory requirements for LDTs because they were relatively simple tests generally confined to local labs, and often used for rare conditions.

But times have changed. LDTs have increased in complexity and availability and are now frequently used to diagnose common, serious medical conditions, including cancer and heart disease, with potentially greater impact on patients. And yet, LDTs are still under a general policy of enforcement discretion. That means they have rarely undergone FDA review to determine whether they are accurate, reliable, and provide clinically meaningful results. It also means that FDA’s own adverse event reporting databases rarely capture problems associated with a faulty LDT. Nevertheless, the Agency was able to pull together 20 case studies based on information available in the public domain that show how lack of LDT oversight may be causing or is causing significant harm to patients.

Some LDTs provide positive results even though the patient doesn’t have the disease. For example, a patient can receive a false positive result from a test that is supposed to determine whether someone has been infected with the bacteria that cause Lyme Disease. Patients may then undergo unnecessary treatments and potentially delay diagnosis of their true condition. Such false positives can be even more detrimental when the test is for ovarian cancer, which could prompt women to remove their ovaries.

The report cites other tests that may produce the opposite problem: false negatives. These tests may suggest that a patient doesn’t have a disease or condition, when in fact they do. That’s the case for a test for the gene mutation that makes an excess of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), which promotes the growth of breast cancer cells. Patients who express HER2 typically take drugs that target HER2, in addition to standard chemotherapy. The majority of tests used to detect HER2 protein or gene amplification are LDTs, but, at least in the past, approximately 20 percent of tests may have been inaccurate. That means that some breast cancer patients may not receive the best treatment when the test fails to detect high HER2 levels.

Noninvasive Prenatal Testing to detect a range of fetal chromosomal abnormalities is an example of testing that may result in either false negatives or false positives. Women with false-positive results may abort a normal pregnancy; women with false-negative results may deliver a child with an unanticipated genetic syndrome. The report also lists tests that have no clear relevance to the disease being tested and others that are based on disproven scientific concepts.

And the costs of this lack of oversight are staggering. We were able to derive an estimate of the public health cost for five of the 20 cited tests. For the CARE Clinical Autism Biomarkers Test alone (one of those cited in the report), FDA economists estimated a total public health cost of $66.1 million.

FDA has proposed to step up our oversight of LDTs. We issued a draft guidance last year which we’re currently working to finalize, that proposes to phase in enforcement of premarket review requirements for LDTs. FDA oversight would help ensure that tests are supported by rigorous evidence, that patients and health care providers can have confidence in the test results, and that LDTs have more scientifically accurate product labeling.

As this report demonstrates, strengthening FDA’s oversight over LDTs is critical to protect both patients and the public health.

Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H., is FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Public Health Strategy and Analysis

The Case for Quality: Working with Stakeholders to Improve the Safety of Medical Devices for Patients

By: Howard Sklamberg, J.D., Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., and Melinda K. Plaisier, M.S.W.

Howard Sklamberg

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

Across FDA, we are devoting tremendous effort, in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, toward activities that drive–and increase–product and manufacturing quality. We believe quality can be quantified through close attention to data and consistent review and analysis of that data, which in turn can promote the practice and culture of quality within firms.

The metrics and assessment tools being developed are key parts of the Case for Quality (CfQ). We are working with a wide variety of stakeholders–including the medical device industry, patients, other governmental and academic colleagues, and payer/provider counterparts–to identify and promote practices that will result in higher quality devices.

The CfQ was launched in October 2011 following an in-depth review of device quality data and feedback from both FDA and industry stakeholders. FDA’s analysis flagged manufacturing quality risks and showed tremendous benefits for firms that drive quality organization-wide. They receive fewer complaints and internal investigations per batch of devices manufactured, often house smaller quality staffs, and have lower quality-related costs, compared with competitors.

Jeffrey Shuren

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

In the four years since the conclusion of the analysis, FDA has continued to observe that the percentage of inspections calling for official action by FDA has remained static, with the same issues recurring frequently year after year. Given this observation, in addition to FDA inspecting device firms on a regular basis, we are thinking about other ways to support quality beyond inspections and traditional regulatory approaches.

FDA introduced the CfQ in an effort to help device manufacturers elevate their focus from the baseline requirements of compliance with regulations alone, and instead focus on predictive and proactive measures they can take independently to improve quality. CfQ also provides FDA the opportunity to change our approach to focus more on what matters most in assuring product and manufacturing quality and safety for patients.

The CfQ has three priorities for addressing the barriers that were identified:

  1. Focus on Quality. FDA and CfQ stakeholders consider compliance to be a baseline, and have shifted our focus increasingly to characteristics and practices that, when present in day-to-day device design and production, correlate to higher-quality outcomes. Through the CfQ, we are collaborating with internal and external customers to identify characteristics that are critical to the quality of a particular device. This will result in a shared understanding of product features and manufacturing processes most important to patient safety.
  2. Stakeholder engagement. FDA works closely with the device industry and a broad group of customers to collaborate on CfQ and solicit feedback. This effort recognizes the extraordinary impact that engagement and agreement among regulators, industry, patients, providers, and payers can have on device quality.
  3. Data transparency. FDA receives a broad array of quality-related data, including information from recalls and adverse event reports. To support device quality, FDA has made device data (except certain information that we are prevented by federal law and regulations from disclosing) available on open.fda.gov.
Melinda Plaisier

Melinda K. Plaisier, FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs

The outcomes of the CfQ will allow stakeholders to focus resources on activities with the greatest impact on assuring that patients and users receive high-quality devices. This effort brings together metrics, successful quality practices, and our partnerships with stakeholders to promote quality and excellence in the medical device industry. It reflects our commitment to ensuring that devices perform as intended, meeting FDA’s mission of protecting and promoting public health.

For more on the Case for Quality initiative, visit http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/medicaldevicequalityandcompliance/ucm378185.htm.


Howard Sklamberg, J.D., is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy.

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

Melinda K. Plaisier, M.S.W., is FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs.

The Merging of Medical Products: Enhancing review of therapeutic and diagnostic combination products

By: Robert M. Califf, M.D. and Jill Hartzler Warner, J.D.

Combination products – medical products that do not fit into the traditional categories of drugs, devices, or biological products – are a growing and important category of therapeutic and diagnostic products under FDA’s regulatory authority.

Robert Califf

Robert M. Califf, M.D., FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

These products, that combine drugs, devices, and/or biological product (“constituent parts”) with one another, come in three configurations. The constituent parts may be physically or chemically combined, co-packaged, or separately distributed with specific labeling for their combined use.

Products in this category range from familiar products such as prefilled syringes and surgical kits to novel and innovative products, which target and enhance therapies. Examples of groundbreaking combination products include antibodies combined with drugs for targeted cancer therapy and products that mimic or replace organs, such as an artificial pancreas.

Combination products pose unique challenges – both because they may involve new, complex technologies – and because their review at FDA often involves the expertise of more than one Center.

While review of such products falls to a cross-center team of experts, it is led by the medical product Center responsible for the constituent part that provides the product’s primary mode of action, which, in the case of a syringe prefilled with a drug, for example, would be FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Effective coordination among FDA staff, and between FDA and the company, is essential – and depends on identifying the proper experts across Centers, supporting processes for communication, and implementing systems for efficient data access and sharing.

Jill Warner

Jill Hartzler Warner, J.D., FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.

FDA’s Office of Combination Products (OCP), within the Office of Special Medical Programs, oversees and coordinates FDA’s regulation of combination products. This includes helping to resolve differences of opinion between Centers or with sponsors, developing guidance and regulations, and working with the medical product Centers to develop processes and policies..

Congress has expressed interest in FDA’s regulation of combination products as part of the 21st Century Cures legislative initiative, with one major theme being the assurance that the premarket review process runs smoothly.

While we already have policies and processes in place to address such issues, we know we can do more. To that end, we’ve recently conducted a focus group study with reviewers from the different Centers based on input from industry to assess how we’re doing. The report confirmed that differences in communication, policies, practices, systems and application types can be challenging when the Centers work together on a review of a combination product. The report also recommended actions to take, confirming the value of efforts already underway. Consistent with these findings, we’re taking a number of steps to clarify regulatory requirements and improve our internal processes and IT systems. It may sound a bit mundane, but doing this work could help us work more efficiently and avoid unnecessary surprises for sponsors. These steps include:

  • Issuing more guidance for review of combination products (e.g., our pending draft guidance document on human factors);
  • Enhancing and simplifying data access and sharing for internal staff;
  • Making it easier for staff to request and monitor inter-center consults;
  • Updating and maintaining our internal contact directory for experts to review a combination product; and
  • Improving our internal standard operating procedures for premarket reviews and compliance activities.

Some improvements are already in place and others will be coming this year and next. We continue to want to hear your ideas for enhancing how we work with you on combination products. We are listening — and excited to do our part by evaluating innovative combination products and helping to improve the well-being of patients by approving new safe and effective therapies.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

Jill Hartzler Warner, J.D., is FDA’s Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.

FDA Invests in Innovative Ways to Communicate to Hispanics

By: Gloria Sánchez-Contreras, M.A.

En Español

National Hispanic Heritage Month–celebrated annually from September 15 to October 15—gives Americans a great opportunity to celebrate the histories, cultures, and contributions of Hispanic Americans whose roots are in Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America.

Gloria Sanchez-ContrerasAt FDA, we join in this celebration as we continue to use innovative ways to reach Hispanics as part of our mission to protect the public health. To achieve this goal, FDA uses media strategies that are culturally and linguistically tailored to Hispanics, who, according to research, are avid users of online and social media.

There are 54 million people of Hispanic origin in the United States, making them the nation’s largest ethnic or racial minority group, with 17 percent of the nation’s total population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The United States has the second-largest population of Spanish-speaking residents in the world, ahead of Colombia and Spain, and second to Mexico, a recent study by the Instituto Cervantes shows.

These statistics cannot go unnoticed. FDA recognizes the importance of connecting with this growing and diverse segment of our population. Consequently, we have increased our online consumer information in Spanish and developed a variety of bilingual communications strategies to reach and engage all Hispanics.

One of the most important strategies we use is to make sure that messages created for Hispanics speak to them effectively. We consider Hispanics’ informational needs, lifestyles, and cultural health beliefs both when creating new messaging and when translating messaging from English to Spanish.

For example, we know Hispanics respond better when communications are in their primary language – which can be English or Spanish – and when communications use images that relate to them. We do this by employing a bilingual and bicultural team that reviews messaging for cultural competence and adapts translations to ensure they are culturally sensitive and in plain language.

In addition to our English-language communications, we have developed strategies to reach out to Spanish-speaking Hispanics online. Our Consumer Updates and drug safety communications are regularly translated into Spanish. We share Spanish-language information through our social media channels, including Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and YouTube.

In addition, we also have a complete Web section in Spanish for consumers (www.FDA.gov/ArticulosConsumidor), a press room (“Comunicados de Prensa”), and a central page (www.FDA.gov/Espanol) that links to a variety of Spanish-language content developed across the Agency’s product centers and offices.

These are exciting times, and it is a privilege to lead some of these efforts for our agency. The Office of External Affairs works diligently across FDA to share important and timely public health news with Latino consumers, stakeholders, media, and community organizations. And during Hispanic Heritage Month—and all the months of the year–we want Hispanics to know that FDA is a trusted source of consumer information.

Gloria Sanchez-Contreras, M.A., is a Bilingual Public Affairs Specialist and the Spanish-Language Communications Lead in FDA’s Office of Media Affairs.

A Quarter Century of Groundbreaking Science: The Forensic Chemistry Center

By: Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D.

This month marks the 25th anniversary of our Forensic Chemistry Center (FCC) in Cincinnati, Ohio. I recently joined former and current administrators and staff of this lab—one of FDA’s many incredible field laboratories—at an event celebrating this milestone.

Acting FDA Commissioner, Stephen Ostroff, M.D.One thing is clear: The last quarter-century has been a period of tremendous success at the FCC. FCC scientists use their scientific analysis and original research to investigate the physical and chemical characteristics and effects of adulterants on products regulated by the Agency, including chemical fingerprinting of poisons, glass, pharmaceuticals, food products and product packaging materials. By analyzing physical samples they can identify counterfeits, trace the origin of a pathogen or solve a crime.

In short, they are the CSI of FDA.

The commitment, expertise, and curiosity of FCC scientists have helped FDA overcome many scientific challenges, and made an extraordinary difference in the lives and safety of millions of Americans. Time and again the sophisticated analyses of puzzling substances by our scientists—often using innovative, esoteric methods, and groundbreaking research, along with the development of new processes and procedures—have made a critical difference in FDA’s ability to investigate and enforce–and protect the American public.

FCC Anniversary group photo

Former and current administrators and staff of the Forensic Chemistry Center (FCC) in Cincinnati, Ohio, at an event celebrating the 25th Anniversary. From left to right: Paul Norris, Director, Office of Regulatory Science; Steve Solomon, Deputy Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs; Dr. Ostroff, Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs; Phil Walsky, Deputy Director, Office of Criminal Investigations; Fred Fricke, former Director of FCC; and, Duane Satzger, Director of FCC.

FCC’s work has paved the way for passage of important laws, legal prosecutions, and consumer protection activities like recalls. And it has helped strengthen international relationships and advance international cooperation to ensure product quality and consumer safety.

Just a few highlights of FCC’s important efforts include:

  • In the 1990s, the lab supported some of FDA’s early work evaluating nicotine, which was recently cited in the proposed rule to deem additional tobacco products subject to the agency’s tobacco product authorities;
  • In 2001, after 22 people died in the Croatian Republic after receiving dialysis using certain devices, FCC’s analysis identified the presence of a toxic performance fluid in those devices that resulted in their recall by the manufacturers;
  • FCC investigated numerous illnesses and deaths of cats and dogs during 2007-8, which led to the determination that the pet food was adulterated with melamine and related compounds;
  • FCC’s investigation and analysis following the death of cattle in Washington State helped the FBI rule out the possibility that it was caused by terrorism;
  • Following the deaths of a number of infants in India who had been given the measles vaccine, FCC investigated the vaccine’s manufacturing process and discovered that the cause was not, as initially feared, a vaccine of poor quality. Instead the children had received pancuronium bromide, a muscle relaxant, which had been packaged in vials with similar size and shape to the vaccine, rather than the vaccine itself. This discovery was communicated to the Indian government, leading to a critical change in their immunization practices; and,
  • FCC developed a method for examining the sea animals impacted by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which helped determine when the seafood would be safe to consume.

It is an extraordinary record. And it’s meant so much to FDA—and the nation—over the past 25 years. But the anniversary and success of this one lab also underscores the remarkable work done by all of FDA’s laboratories across the country. These labs and the districts in which they are located are the critical front line eyes and ears of FDA. And they are the springboard for excellent science.

Good science is fundamental to the mission of FDA. We need it to make good regulatory decisions. It’s what the public expects and deserves. By being able to handle and apply the science of today and anticipate the science of tomorrow we can be more flexible and adaptive, and support innovation.

Having seen the impressive and important work our labs are doing, I’m more committed than ever of the need to invest in better facilities and the best support. We must maintain state-of-the-art laboratories and research facilities, and attract, hire, and retain the best scientists to work in them. First-rate regulatory science requires first-rate scientists working in first-rate facilities.

It’s why I’ve made this a priority for FDA. And why we will put it high on our list of subjects for discussion with Congress as they shape future budgets for the Agency.

The scientists in FDA’s field laboratories are among the unsung heroes of FDA’s work to protect the public health. So let me congratulate and thank those at the FCC and across FDA on the milestone occasion of the 25th anniversary of the Forensic Chemistry Center.

Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D., is Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Why Partnerships are Key to the Science of Patient Input

By: Nina L. Hunter and Robert M. Califf, M.D.

We recently announced the first FDA Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (PEAC), supported by the Center of Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The Committee will provide advice to the FDA Commissioner on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. The PEAC will bring patients, patient advocacy groups, and experts together for a broader discussion of important patient-related issues, to increase integration of patient perspectives into the regulatory process, and to help drive more patient-centric medical device innovation, development, evaluation, and access.

Nina Hunter

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., a Regulatory Scientist in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, currently on detail as a Special Assistant for Medical Policy to the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco.

With the PEAC offering an important avenue for patient views to be incorporated in the assessment of new medical devices, complementary programs in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are continuing to explore multiple approaches to patient involvement in development programs for drugs and biologic products, respectively. The Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) Program, led by Dr. Theresa Mullin, provides a way for scientists from across the Agency to obtain patients’ input on specific disease areas, including their perspectives on their condition, its impact on daily life, and available therapies. As part of this program, FDA is holding a series of public meetings, each focused on a specific disease area. Outcomes of these meetings include detailed descriptions of patient perspectives on the most significant symptoms and treatments.

While FDA continues our work on patient engagement through our newly formed advisory committee and the PFDD Program, public-private partnerships (PPPs) are key to empowering patients across the spectrum of medical product development and evaluation. Here we will describe three such important partnerships.

FDA is a founding member of the Medical Device Innovation Consortium (MDIC), a PPP created with the objective of advancing medical device regulatory science. MDIC recently issued a catalog of available methods that can be used for collecting data on patient preferences, along with a framework for considering how to incorporate patient preferences across the total lifecycle of a device. The ultimate goal is to use these data to guide the development, assessment, and delivery of medical devices that better meet patients’ needs. As the scientific evidence and methodological approaches in this area mature, FDA will continue to collaborate with others on efforts to collect and use patient preference data for regulatory purposes.

Robert Califf

Robert M. Califf, M.D., FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

Like the MDIC, the Kidney Health Initiative (KHI) is a PPP that includes representatives from the FDA, healthcare professional societies, patient groups, and the medical products industry. Recently, KHI convened a workshop under the leadership of Dr. Frank Hurst and Ms. Carolyn Neuland, with patients, care partners, scientists, doctors, nurses, technicians, companies, and FDA, to hear discussions about the issues that patients with kidney diseases consider most important. More than 80 patients attended this workshop; many of these were not members of an organized patient advocacy group, but instead individuals truly driven to improve the plight of all patients with kidney disease. CDRH and CDER are working with the KHI to advance scientific understanding of the implications for patient health and safety posed by new and existing medical products, as well as fostering development of new therapies for kidney diseases. This PPP creates a transparent infrastructure and processes that facilitate collaboration and communication among the greater Nephrology community and FDA.

FDA has also held several meetings with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) throughout the PROMIS initiative, including the Patient Reported Outcome Consortium. PROMIS aims to provide clinicians and researchers access to efficient, precise, valid, and responsive patient-reported measures of health and well-being. PROMIS measures can be used as primary or secondary endpoints in clinical studies of the effectiveness of treatment, and PROMIS tools can be used across a wide variety of chronic diseases and conditions and in the general population. These tools pertain to all medical products, and they can be used to understand the burden of their disease and impacts of treatment on how patients feel and function in their daily lives, so that appropriate patient-centered outcome assessments can be developed and integrated into clinical trials to produce meaningful data to guide treatment decisions. Specifically at CDRH, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in regulatory submissions has increased significantly, with approximately 20 submissions per year citing PROMs prior to FDA’s guidance on the topic, to over 120 last year alone. This jump indicates significant interest by industry and clinical researchers in generating patient-centered evidence from studies done for regulatory purposes.

FDA is ready to advance the science of patient input and work with a wider community of patients, clinicians, and social science researchers in a collaborative way. We expect the number of partnerships with patients and their caregivers to grow, and the effort to become more effective as the underlying science and cultural understanding continues to develop.

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., is a Regulatory Scientist in the Center of Devices and Radiological Health, currently on detail as a Special Assistant for Medical Policy to the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

National Preparedness Month: FDA and Access to Medical Countermeasures During Public Health Emergencies

By: Brooke Courtney, J.D., M.P.H.

Just weeks after witnessing the fall of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, I was a student volunteer in a New York City hospital emergency department when several people arrived saying they had been exposed to anthrax.

Brooke CourtneyOne had even brought a small plastic bag holding white powder. Around this time, the media was reporting on letters mailed that were laced with white powder confirmed to be Bacillus anthracis, which causes anthrax.

At the hospital, we wondered whether we might become exposed to anthrax and how it could be prevented or treated. We quickly escorted the patients who had been exposed to white powder safely away from others to be examined by physicians.

Fortunately, our patients hadn’t been exposed to anthrax. But the letters contaminated with the agent tragically led to five deaths, and 17 more people became ill. Many others were treated with antibiotics as a precaution.

That year, 2001, was a turning point in our nation’s readiness for public health emergencies, including those that result from deliberate attacks or from natural causes like a disease outbreak. In particular, the U.S. government has invested substantially in medical products required for diagnosis, prevention or treatment of a wide range of threats, including anthrax. FDA is part of that national preparedness.

At FDA, we work to help ensure the availability of safe and effective medical countermeasures (MCMs). These are the medical products, including drugs, vaccines, and in vitro diagnostics (IVDs), to counter chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats, including emerging infectious diseases like Ebola.

In 2010, FDA launched an agency-wide effort, the Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMi), to advance and coordinate the challenging, ongoing MCM development and emergency use work that was occurring in FDA’s product centers and other offices and with other federal partners. Our most recent program update details many of FDA’s MCM achievements since that time, including important, exciting product approvals and regulatory science advances.

At the foundation of FDA’s MCM efforts is a legal and regulatory framework strengthened by Congress after 2001 with the enactment of several MCM-related laws. For example, FDA now has the authority:

  • When the Secretary of HHS declares that the circumstances justify such an authorization, to authorize the use of unapproved MCMs and unapproved uses of approved MCMs under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) during or in preparation for an emergency, and,
  • For approved MCMs, to authorize emergency dispensing by stakeholders, waive certain manufacturing requirements, and extend the useful life of product held in state and local stockpiles.

As an example of our legal authorities in action, we’ve issued multiple EUAs to facilitate access to uncleared IVDs to support disease detection and diagnosis during the H1N1 influenza pandemic and for H7N9 influenza, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), and Ebola virus that emerged in West Africa in 2014.

Today, our nation is far more prepared than at the time of the anthrax attacks with flexible emergency legal authorities, critical MCMs stockpiled or under development, and enhanced knowledge about how to prevent or treat threats. But, as the recent Ebola epidemic and MERS outbreak show, threats both known and unknown continue to evolve or emerge and require our constant attention and vigilance.

September is National Preparedness Month. And while FDA and other agencies work hard every day to help prepare the nation for potential threats, everyone can be involved in disaster readiness. As we approach the end of Preparedness Month, here are a few things you can do now:

  • Become familiar with disasters that might occur where you live; plans for your community, workplace or school; and what HHS is doing. You can also download a variety of free disaster apps.
  • Make and test a family plan (e.g., communicating during an emergency).
  • Make an emergency kit of supplies, including medical products, you’ll need for at least three days.

Brooke Courtney, J.D., M.P.H., is Senior Regulatory Counsel in FDA’s Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats.

FDA’s Patient Preference Initiative: The Need for Evolving Tools and Policies

By: Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., and Robert M. Califf, M.D.

Last week we announced FDA’s first-ever Patient Engagement Advisory Committee, which will provide advice to the FDA Commissioner on complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. We thought it would be good to step back and fill you in about our Patient Preference Initiative.

Nina Hunter

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., a Regulatory Scientist in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, currently on detail as a Special Assistant for Medical Policy to the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco.

In 2013, the FDA launched the Patient Preference Initiative, now led by Kathryn O’Callaghan, (Acting) Associate Director for Science and Strategic Partnerships at FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). With this initiative, FDA’s CDRH expanded upon the current approach for capturing patient-centered perspectives in its structured benefit-risk framework, to outline a way of incorporating patients’ views on benefits and risks together with those of FDA’s health care professionals, scientists, and engineers during regulatory decision-making about certain medical devices.

This approach incorporates scientific, empirical evidence from different patients who, as a group, may have a range of views about the degree and types of risks associated with a medical device and how risks should be weighed against the anticipated benefits. When circumstances are appropriate and the data meets the requisite standard, device reviewers at the FDA can consider patient preference data in the overall evaluation of certain devices along with evidence from clinical and nonclinical testing.

If the device is ultimately cleared or approved, the product labeling could include a description of the range of patient preferences and characteristics described by those data, providing patients and healthcare practitioners with key information to make well-informed decisions. It is important to reiterate that FDA would not approve a device if it determines the device would expose patients to an unreasonable or significant risk of illness or injury, or that the benefits do not outweigh the risks for a defined target population.

Robert Califf

Robert M. Califf, M.D., FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

As we increasingly work to incorporate the perspectives of patients when evaluating technologies for regulatory approval, we will also need better tools in order to accurately capture and characterize patient views on acceptable balances of benefits and risks. And as this new science of patient preferences continues to evolve, policies must likewise continue to be adapted as approaches are refined.

The FDA, through CDRH and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), released Draft Guidance on patient preference information this spring. When finalized, this will help device-makers and other stakeholders assess patient valuations of benefit and risk related to relevant device types, illnesses, and conditions. It will also facilitate more systematic consideration of patient views as part of structured benefit-risk assessments for new medical devices. In time, as patient groups, industry, and others conduct more patient preference studies, the FDA and others will better understand patients’ perspectives on benefits and risks, and tradeoffs they are willing to make. This research has the potential to drive more patient-centered device innovation, assessment and access.

The draft guidance provides a case study for such patient-centered device regulation. A recent study conducted by FDA scientists Drs. Martin Ho and Telba Irony and researchers at RTI Health Solutions demonstrated that robust empirical data can be successfully elicited from patients and used to inform deliberations surrounding the approval of a medical product—in this case, the first device for treating obesity to be approved by the FDA since 2007. This pioneering work was a fundamental step forward in our efforts to develop the best methods and practices for systematically incorporating patient preferences into device development and assessment.

As part of the Patient Preference Initiative and other activities to better integrate patient views into our decision making, the FDA is working with others to advance the science of patient input. In our next FDA Voice blog post we will expand on this growing dimension.

The FDA recognizes the potential benefit to be gained from understanding and applying patient input to spur patient-centered medical product innovation and inform patient-centered regulation. We believe that by better understanding patients’ experiences, needs, and views, we will be able to improve the development of medical products and enhance the safe and effective use of those products.

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., is a Regulatory Scientist in the Center of Devices and Radiological Health, currently on detail as a Special Assistant for Medical Policy to the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

Strengthening the Clinical Trial Enterprise for Medical Devices: An FDA/CDRH Strategic Priority Update

By: Owen Faris, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D.

Every day, millions of Americans rely on FDA approved or cleared medical devices to save, sustain, or improve the quality of their lives. At the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), we are committed to patients having access to high-quality, safe, and effective medical devices–as quickly as possible. Innovation is key to both speed and excellence in that endeavor. And as we discussed in our blog earlier this year, clinical trials are a key component to the device innovation process.

Owen Faris

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

In general, clinical trial data are required in premarket submissions for the highest risk devices to demonstrate that they provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, and the sooner those trials can safely begin, the sooner patients have access to potentially important, innovative technologies. As part of our 2014-2015 Strategic Priorities, CDRH committed to reducing the time and cost of regulatory and non-regulatory aspects of the U.S. clinical trial enterprise, while assuring the protection of human subjects and the generation of robust data.

In 2015, we have continued to advance our clinical trials program with publication of a new draft guidance document related to how we consider benefits and risks for Investigational Device Exemptions (IDEs) decisions. These decisions are tailored to the type and intent of the clinical study. We’ve also issued a draft guidance that, when final, will encourage the use of adaptive designs for clinical trials and we are considering additional process improvements.

Jeffrey Shuren

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

We’ve also trained our review staff on the practical challenges related to conducting a successful trial. As part of this training, more than 100 review staffers visited sponsors of clinical trials to better understand the context and challenges of initiating and conducting clinical trials in the U.S.

Where has all this led? IDE review times, which had already improved in 2014, have continued to progress in 2015. For example:

  • From 2011 to 2014, the median number of days to full IDE approval decreased from 442 days to 101 days.
  • During 2015, the median number of days to full IDE approval has decreased to 30 days.

Additionally, full approval entails fewer review cycles. In 2011, only 15% of IDEs were approved within two review cycles. In 2015, 74% of IDEs were approved in two review cycles. This performance meets FDA’s strategic goals and, more importantly, means that important technologies have the potential to reach US patients sooner.

Early Feasibility Studies (EFS) are small clinical studies designed to gain early insights into an innovative technology during the development process before starting a larger clinical trial. EFS often are a critical step in device innovation, but they are frequently conducted in other countries rather than in the U.S. Device developers tend to conduct subsequent feasibility and pivotal clinical studies and then bring their products to market earlier in those countries, where they conducted an EFS to leverage clinicians who have gained experience with their technologies.

As part of our 2014-2015 Strategic Priority to Strengthen the Clinical Trials Enterprise, CDRH established a goal of increasing the number of EFS IDEs submitted to each review division in the Center.

Interest in our EFS program has grown substantially, with a 50% increase in the number of EFS submissions during the first nine months of 2015, compared with the same period in 2013. In addition, six of our seven Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) review divisions reported an increase in the number of EFS submissions for 2015 compared with 2013. Recently, we developed a comprehensive educational module to help industry navigate the EFS process. We expect that this is just the beginning and we will continue to see more EFS conducted in the U.S.

To obtain more details regarding our performance for this important strategic priority, see Clinical Trial Performance Update – September 2015.

We are committed to making U.S. patients the first in the world to have access to high-quality, safe and effective medical devices. We believe these results are clear evidence that we are moving the right direction, helping to ensure that robust and efficient clinical trials that provide appropriate human subject protections take place here in the U.S.

Owen Faris, Ph.D., is Clinical Trials Director (acting), Office of Device Evaluation at 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

FDA Announces First-ever Patient Engagement Advisory Committee

By: Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., and Robert M. Califf, M.D.

Although it may seem odd in retrospect, the development of new technologies intended to improve patients’ lives has largely relied upon expert opinions rather than asking patients and families directly what they consider most important.

Nina Hunter

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., a Regulatory Scientist in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, currently on detail as a Special Assistant for Medical Policy to the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco.

But that’s changing. We are entering an era of “patient-centered” medicine in which patients and their care partners participate actively in decision-making and priority-setting about all aspects of health care. Americans are becoming increasingly active consumers of health care, making choices about their doctors, diagnostics, treatments, and healthcare experiences rather than simply allowing health care providers to make the decisions for them. Moreover, FDA believes that patients can and should bring their own experiences to bear in helping the Agency define meaningful benefits or unreasonable risks for certain new devices.

Today we are excited to announce FDA’s first-ever Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (PEAC). This body will provide advice to the FDA Commissioner on a range of complex issues relating to medical devices, the regulation of devices, and their use by patients. It will give FDA the opportunity to obtain expertise on various patient-related topics, with the goal of improving communication of benefits and risks and increasing integration of patient perspectives into the regulatory process. Some questions that the PEAC may discuss include where and how best to engage patients across the device development and assessment lifecycle as well as how FDA and sponsors should communicate patient preference information to patients. The PEAC represents a new and exciting opportunity to foster patient partnerships with FDA, and it complements other efforts at FDA to bring the patient into the medical device regulatory process. This includes studies to evaluate patient preferences in medical devices and a recently published draft guidance on patient preference information for PMAs, HDE applications, de novo requests, and inclusion in device labeling that describes how patient tolerance for risk and perspective on benefit, in addition to clinical data and other information, may be considered in FDA’s assessment of the benefit-risk profile of certain devices. While it’s important to consider patient perspectives, we understand that patients still expect FDA to do our primary job — namely, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of FDA-regulated medical devices. This is primarily accomplished at FDA through regulation at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. When assessing whether valid scientific evidence shows that a device’s probable benefit outweighs its likely risks, FDA may consider rigorous, systematically gathered patient preference information as a part of the totality of the evidence from clinical and nonclinical testing. However, patient preference information will not be used to justify approval of unsafe or ineffective devices: if FDA determines the device would expose patients to an unreasonable or significant risk of illness or injury, or that the benefits do not outweigh the risks for a defined target population, FDA would not approve such a device.

Robert Califf

Robert M. Califf, M.D., FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

When is patient preference information most useful? These data can be used in several major ways:

  • to help identify the most important benefits and risks of a technology from a patient’s perspective;
  • to assess the relative importance to patients of different attributes of benefit and risk, and clarify how patients think about the tradeoffs of these benefits and risks for a given technology; and
  • to help understand how patient preferences vary across a population.

As part of the Patient Preference Initiative and other activities to better integrate patient views into our decision-making, FDA is working with others to advance the science of patient input. We will discuss these extensive partnerships in an upcoming FDA Voice blog.

FDA’s sharpened focus on patient-centered technology development, evaluation, and use has already begun to positively affect the development of innovative therapies and clinical solutions. These efforts are helping to drive a more patient-centered medical product development and assessment process. We’re excited to invite the patient, industry, and academic communities to join in and help us accelerate this important work.

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., is a Regulatory Scientist in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, currently on detail as a Special Assistant for Medical Policy to the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.