Combination Products Review Program: Progress and Potential

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

Nina Hunter

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., FDA’s Associate Director for Science Policy in the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco

About a year ago, we shared with you our Combination Product Review, Intercenter Consult Process Study Report, which was developed by FDA’s Office of Planning. The report’s findings were derived from focus group studies with reviewers from FDA’s different Centers and included input from industry. Since then, we have built on foundational policies and processes to address many of the issues identified in the report.

The team has made tremendous progress toward the goal of modernizing the combination products review program by improving coordination, ensuring consistency, enhancing clarity, and providing transparency within the Agency as well as with all stakeholders. We are excited to share our progress with you now. The table below summarizes some key achievements from the past year, including publication of draft guidances, a variety of new processes, and a look at future goals.

Robert Califf

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

As technologies advance across multiple fields, the distinctions that previously allowed combination products to be neatly categorized by FDA’s medical product centers are blurring or even vanishing.

Combination products account for a growing proportion of products submitted for review, and FDA will continue to pursue new approaches to collaboration that ensure safe, effective and innovative medical products are made available to patients as quickly as possible. Continued collaboration with you, our stakeholders, will be critical as together we continue to make progress in this important area.

We are still listening and have much more work to do!

Combination Products Review Table

This table summarizes key Combination Product Review Program achievements from the past year. Click on table for PDF version.

The PDF version of the table is also located here: combination-products-review-program

Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., is FDA’s Associate Director for Science Policy in the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco

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

Trade Alert: FDA Issues New Import Data Requirements

By: Howard Sklamberg, J.D.

One of FDA’s many responsibilities is to review imported products regulated by the agency to determine admissibility. This job has become increasingly challenging with growing volumes of imports of FDA-regulated products each year — from six million import entries in 2002 to 35 million in 2015.

Howard SklambergTo help meet that challenge in a way that benefits both government and the trade community, import entries of products regulated by FDA are submitted through an electronic system called the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). A final rule published on November 29 in the Federal Register specifies certain data that must be submitted in ACE when an FDA-regulated product is offered for import into the United States. The effective date of the rule is December 29, 2016, 30 days from the date of publication.

The trade community helped us pilot ACE, which is operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), from August 2015 to May 2016. In July 2016, ACE became the sole CBP-authorized system for electronic submissions of entries that contain FDA-regulated products.

The rule also includes technical revisions to certain sections of FDA regulations:

  • The owner or consignee of an FDA-regulated product is now defined as the importer of record. This brings FDA regulations up to date with previous revisions to customs laws. (21 CFR 1.83 and 21 CFR 1005.2)
  • FDA will now directly provide a notice that an FDA-regulated product is to be sampled, rather than having to go through CBP to provide that notice. (21 CFR 1.90)
  • FDA may now provide written notices electronically to the importer of record about FDA actions to refuse FDA-regulated products and/or subject certain drug products to administrative destruction. (21 CFR 1.94)
  • The rule clarifies that FDA can reject an entry for failure to provide through ACE the complete and accurate information required by the rule.

As a result of the more streamlined import process for FDA-regulated products provided by ACE, the rule is expected to lead to an efficient use of FDA and importer resources, and more effective enforcement of laws and regulations enforced by FDA.

FDA will continue to provide assistance to filers working to properly submit the required data. Some of the measures we have instituted:

  • We are offering telephone meetings with importers, customs brokers, and other stakeholders, in real-time, while they are filing entries in ACE. Request a meeting by emailing ACE_Support@fda.hhs.gov.
  • An ACE Support Center is staffed 24/7. Reach FDA staff by email at ACE_Support@fda.hhs.gov or by phone at a domestic toll-free line (877-345-1101) or a local/international line (571-620-7320).
  • Upon request, FDA will assist in a filer’s first ACE submission, or for filers who import various commodities, FDA will assist with every first submission of a particular commodity.
  • Additional assistance for general import operations and policy questions, including FDA product codes and entry requirements, is available via email at FDAImportsInquiry@fda.hhs.gov or by calling 301-796-0356.

ACE replaces the Automated Commercial System, an older electronic submission system. Additionally, ACE provides an efficient single window for importers. Prior to the development of ACE, importers of products regulated by multiple government agencies could in some cases be required to submit information more than once.

ACE has already shown promise in accomplishing the dual goal of protecting public health while also serving the needs of the trade community by facilitating a more efficient review for admissibility of compliant products. FDA processing times for both automated and manual review have already been substantially reduced, by approximately 75% and 93% respectively, compared with the agency’s processing times in the previous system.

The ACE system serves to protect public health by allowing FDA to focus its limited resources on those FDA-regulated products being offered for import that may be associated with a greater public health risk.

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

National Cyber Security Awareness Month: Understanding the Interdependencies of Medical Devices and Cybersecurity

By: Suzanne B. Schwartz, M.D., M.B.A.

October is National Cybersecurity Awareness Month. Proclaimed by President Obama each year, Cybersecurity Awareness Month encourages the public and industry to understand the importance of cybersecurity and to be vigilant when it comes to the technology we rely on every day, including helping patients remain confident in the safety of their medical devices.

Suzanne SchwartzMany medical devices are “life critical systems”—meaning they play a crucial role in monitoring and protecting human life. As more and more of these systems use technology to interconnect, we must be dedicated to securing them from hackers and cyber-attacks.

Here at FDA, we work with hospitals, health care professionals, and patients to provide medical device manufacturers with guidance for monitoring, identifying, and addressing cybersecurity vulnerabilities in their devices before and after they have entered the market. To further counter threats, FDA has been making a deliberate effort to work with outside groups—including those we have previously not engaged with—such as security researchers.

This outreach has allowed our guidance to evolve. While manufacturers can incorporate controls in the design of a product to help prevent these risks, it is essential that manufacturers also be proactive and on guard for potential vulnerabilities and emerging threats throughout the lifecycle of devices, and be prepared to devise solutions—points made in FDA’s draft guidance on postmarket medical device cybersecurity, issued in January 2016.

A life cycle approach requires creating, evolving, and maintaining a comprehensive cybersecurity risk management program starting from early product development and extending throughout the product’s lifespan. A key component of such a program is what should be done after a product’s potential risks and vulnerabilities have been identified. A life cycle approach should include manufacturers collaborating with entities that discover threats or vulnerabilities to a medical device’s cybersecurity in order to understand and assess the identified risks. It should also include manufacturers developing appropriate solutions prior to the vulnerabilities being publicly disclosed, which is an added protection for patients.

But, our work alone won’t achieve safety if all stakeholders do not recognize and remain vigilant against potential threats. Medical device manufacturers, government agencies, health care delivery organizations, health care professionals, and patients all share this responsibility.

In recognition of this shared responsibility, FDA has entered into a partnership with the National Health Information Sharing and Analysis Center (NH-ISAC), and the Medical Device Innovation, Safety, and Security Consortium (MDISS) to foster rapid sharing of medical device vulnerabilities, threats, and mitigations within the hospital and health care ecosystem. Doing so will help to proactively address cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities that may impact patient safety.

Digital connections provide great power to innovate—and security must keep pace with that innovation. Safeguarding our sector’s—Healthcare and Public Health (HPH)—critical infrastructure therefore includes first identifying, and then addressing previously unforeseen medical device cybersecurity vulnerabilities. As National Cybersecurity Awareness Month rolls on, we encourage everyone to be aware, vigilant, and committed to upholding and strengthening cybersecurity. Through a joint approach encompassing the public and several government agencies, we are beginning to see the necessary change in culture within the medical device ecosystem, accompanied by progress in the management of medical device cybersecurity. FDA’s January 2016 workshop “Moving Forward: Collaborative Approaches to Medical Device Cybersecurity” highlighted some of the progress that has been made. Moreover, recent examples of coordinated vulnerability disclosure between medical device manufacturers and security researchers demonstrate the promise of partnership in addressing medical device cybersecurity. But there is still work to be done, and we must remain committed to working collaboratively to address our goal of protecting the public health.

Learn More

For more information about National Cybersecurity Awareness Month including tips on cyber safety, visit the Stop.Think.Connect.™ campaign website. You can also find more information about medical device cybersecurity on FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health web page.

Suzanne B. Schwartz, M.D., M.B.A., is Associate Director for Science and Strategic Partnerships at FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

FDA is working with hospitals to modernize data collection about medical devices

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

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

America’s hospitals and their dedicated staff helps us fight disease and suffering by delivering life-saving and life-enhancing care every day in an astounding variety of ways.

From helping set a broken leg or responding to an emerging viral threat, to assisting and performing delicate heart surgeries on tiny newborns, these hospital personnel are the front line of surveillance, vigilance, and intervention.

Throughout their work day, hospital staff use a variety of medical devices: imaging machines, EKGs and in vitro tests to make diagnoses; infusion pumps, ventilators and robotics to provide treatment, and an array of implants to replace diseased joints and organs. And, as the nation’s hubs for real-time health care data, hospitals are uniquely positioned to help identify new safety problems with devices as well as changes in the frequency of already known safety problems because they use these technologies in the real-world setting of clinical practice, outside of the more controlled setting  of a clinical trial.

FDA is looking to improve the way we work with hospitals to modernize and streamline data collection about medical devices.

Jeffrey Shuren

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

Given the greater diversity and complexity of medical devices today; the rapid technological advances and iterative nature of medical device product development; the interface between the technology and the user – including the learning curve associated with adopting new technology; and, in some cases, a relatively short product life cycle that can be measured in months, not years; FDA’s evaluation of medical device safety presents unique challenges not seen with drugs and biologics. Therefore, assuring the safety of medical devices depends on many factors and should a problem arise, it could be due to a variety of causes.

At the time of premarket evaluation, however, it is not feasible to identify all possible risks or to have absolute certainty regarding a technology’s benefit-risk profile. Among other reasons, studies required to do so would likely be prohibitively large in order to capture less frequent and more unpredictable effects or consequences. In addition, such larger studies still may not reflect the true benefit-risk profile of the device. Once a device is on the market, for example, doctors may use it beyond the FDA cleared intended use. In addition, subsequent modifications to the device or changes in how the device is used in practice can result in new safety risks or greater frequency of known risks.

FDA has several tools for watching devices once they are on the market, also called postmarket surveillance, all of which have inherent limitations. For one thing, we can require that a manufacturer conduct a post-approval or postmarket surveillance study that focuses on identifying potential longer-term issues noted at the time of clearance or approval or specific safety concerns that may arise after clearance or approval. However, conducting studies on a product after it’s already on the market can be challenging because patients often have little incentive to enroll in a study when the device is already available to them.

Likely the most well-known of FDA’s postmarket surveillance tools is medical device reporting, which FDA requires from certain entities, including device manufacturers and device user facilities, such as hospitals. Federal law requires hospitals and other user facilities to report when they become aware of information reasonably suggesting that a medical device has or may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury to a patient.  They must report these medical device-related deaths to both FDA and the manufacturer, if known; and device-related serious injuries to the manufacturer, or to FDA, if the manufacturer is not known.  Such passive surveillance has important limitations because it relies on people to identify that a harm occurred or a risk is present, recognize that the harm or risk is associated with the use of a particular device, and take the time to report it.

Congress mandated this reporting by user facilities in 1990 to complement similar adverse event reporting by manufacturers. But then, in 1997, Congress required that FDA establish a reporting program that could limit user facility reporting to a subset of representative user facilities. As part of our efforts to develop this  reporting program, FDA set up a large-scale network of about 300 hospitals, called MedSun (the Medical Product Safety Network), with whom we work interactively to better understand and report on device use in the real-world environment. Even with MedSun, all hospitals were required to continue reporting until FDA implements by regulation a program limiting user facility reporting to a subset of facilities.

Although FDA has recognized that requiring all hospitals and other user facilities to report may provide limited added value and could entail unnecessary costs that take away from patient care, we have not yet established the program limiting reporting to a subset of user facilities. In the past, we have not enforced universal reporting requirements for hospitals and other user facilities.

In light of several high-profile device safety issues occurring in hospitals, FDA, in December 2015, initiated inspections at 17 hospitals, chosen because there were reports of events at these facilities related to the spread of uterine cancer from the use of morcellators or the spread of infections associated with contaminated duodenoscopes. While these events appeared to be the kind that would have fallen under our current medical device reporting requirements, we did not see corresponding adverse event reports in our adverse event (MAUDE) database. From those inspections, we learned three important lessons:

  • First, some hospitals didn’t submit required reports for deaths or serious injuries related to devices used at their facilities, and in some cases, they did not have adequate procedures in place for reporting device-related death or serious injury events to FDA or to the manufacturers.  Based on the number of user facilities in the United States and the number of reports we receive, we believe that these hospitals are not unique in that there is limited to no reporting to FDA or to the manufacturers at some hospitals.  We want to work with all hospitals to address these issues.
  • Second, hospital staff often were not aware of nor trained to comply with all of FDA’s medical device reporting requirements.
  • Third, we feel certain there is a better way to work with hospitals to get the real-world information we need, and we should work with the hospital community to find that right path, especially in light of developments in the creation and evaluation of electronic health information.

In order to effectively address these issues, we will work with the hospital community on what role they should play in assuring the safe use of medical devices. This work will include how they can effectively participate in  the National Evaluation System for health Technology (NEST), and whether or not current reporting requirements should remain, be modified, or eliminated in light of more effective modern tools, such as software tools to conduct active surveillance of electronic health information that contains unique device identifiers.  In many cases, our inspections of these 17 hospitals turned up violations of FDA’s medical device reporting regulation. For some hospitals with significant violations of the regulation, FDA received a response that we determined was not adequate to address those violations, and we engaged with these facilities to facilitate an effective path to compliance. These hospitals indicated their willingness to work with us and address the violations, and at this time, we do not believe any additional action with regard to these hospitals is necessary.  Some hospitals also expressed willingness to work with us on more efficient and effective ways to collect the information we need.

On December 5, FDA will hold a public workshop to solicit input and advice on improving hospital-based surveillance systems and the broader role of using hospitals to evaluate how well devices work in the clinical setting. We encourage all hospital stakeholders—from clinicians to IT system managers—to attend and discuss current hospital-based surveillance efforts, the role of hospitals in evidence generation and future opportunities for hospital-based surveillance. We’d also like their input on the incorporation of unique device identifiers (UDIs) into electronic health records to aid in the future development of evidence generation efforts, including the support of better device development, surveillance and health care delivery.

We are already working directly with the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Hospital Association to prepare for this workshop and help develop improvements to our systems.

Hospitals are our partners in building the infrastructure for NEST. Together we can build a state-of-the-art system that not only quickly identifies life-threatening problems caused by medical devices but also expedites patient access to crucial life-saving devices. Armed with such information, health care providers can help patients make more informed medical decisions that improve their health.

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

precisionFDA’s Next Challenge? Conduct an App-a-Thon!

By: Zivana Tezak, Ph.D., and Elaine Johanson

FDA is increasingly harnessing the power of supercomputers, the creative and collaborative culture of the scientific community, and novel approaches to technology to help achieve advances in diagnostics, therapeutics, and analytics that will ultimately benefit patients.

Zevana Tezak

Zivana Tezak, Ph.D., is Associate Director for Science and Technology at FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Perhaps no program personifies these efforts more than the online research portal precisionFDA, which was developed by FDA scientists with the help of leading minds from Silicon Valley as part of President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI).

The goal of the PMI is to help translate scientific knowledge about genomics into clinical care. As part of this initiative, precisionFDA’s task is to advance the use of a core technology behind the PMI known as next generation sequencing or NGS, which is capable of mapping the entire human genome. To achieve that, precisionFDA is drawing upon the latest computing and storage technologies to provide an open source cloud-based space where experts can share data, ideas, and methodologies. Today, it boasts more than 1,600 participants, including researchers, test developers, industry, academics, statisticians, and clinicians.

One way we’ve been learning and growing is through contests designed to spark the creative thinking of members on behalf of important NGS questions about data, analytics, and sequencing tools.

We are happy to announce the next challenge: an “App-a-Thon,” inviting software developers to get together with their peers, collaborators, and friends to add NGS software apps to the precisionFDA app library. Apps in this case are executable commands using the Linux operating system that are “wrapped” around NGS software.

Elaine Johanson

Elaine Johanson, is precisionFDA Project Manager and Deputy Director of FDA’s Office of Health Informatics

Apps can be existing, modified, or completely new. Ultimately this challenge, which closes Oct. 28, 2016, is a contest to engage the NGS community in the development of new genome sequencing analytical tools for use on precisionFDA. These apps can do a variety of useful activities such as simulations, benchmarking, data integration, mapping portions of the genome, or identifying genetic variants. Members of precisionFDA are encouraged to try out these apps by running them on the platform.

Our goal is to build a robust reference library of apps and files so that precisionFDA can provide developers with everything they need to support development work on their software pipeline or tests.

If you’d like to set up an App-a-Thon, FDA provides the framework and all the materials, storage, and compute capacity to hold an App-a-Thon on precisionFDA. We encourage you to choose a timeframe, invite your researcher/developer friends, and follow the directions in FDA’s ‘App-a-Thon in a Box’ toolkit. This toolkit even contains video and results from a precisionFDA App-a-Thon held at Stanford University.

The results of this challenge will be highlighted by FDA Commissioner Robert Califf at the World Precision Medicine Congress on Nov. 14, 2016 in Washington D.C. Participating will benefit the entire NGS community, but most importantly, it will advance public health and benefit the patients we collectively serve.

Zivana Tezak, Ph.D., is Associate Director for Science and Technology at FDA’s Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological Health, Center for Devices and Radiological Health 

Elaine Johanson, is precisionFDA Project Manager and Deputy Director of FDA’s Office of Health Informatics

Using Symbols to Convey Information in Medical Device Labeling

By: Antoinette (Tosia) Hazlett, MSN, RN, and Scott Colburn CAPT, USPHS

Symbols convey important messages for navigating everyday life; whether it’s a traffic sign or a graphic image indicating that no smoking is allowed in a building. Symbols in medical device labeling can also convey important information. However, to be an effective means of communicating information, it’s critical that symbols on medical devices are understood by the individuals who use them.

Tosia Hazlett

Antoinette (Tosia) Hazlett, MSN, RN, Senior Policy Analyst at FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

In June, FDA issued the Use of Symbols in Labeling final rule, which describes the circumstances in which manufacturers can use a stand-alone symbol in device labeling without any adjacent explanatory text. For example, if certain requirements are met under the final rule, manufacturers of sterile syringes could opt to use the symbol for “do not reuse” on a syringe package without adding the actual words “do not reuse” to the package.

Using Symbols

The “Use of Symbols in Labeling” final rule which went into effect on September 13, 2016, does not mandate the use of stand-alone symbols in device labeling. Under the final rule, device manufacturers have three options. They can choose not to use symbols, use symbols with adjacent explanatory text, or use stand-alone symbols that have been established in a standard if certain requirements are met, including providing an explanation of the symbols in a symbols glossary that is included in the labeling for the device.

Adding the option of stand-alone symbols is expected to reduce design costs for manufacturers because it is more consistent with how devices are currently labeled in Europe and other foreign markets. Replacing small and difficult-to-read text with a symbol will also help make some labeling more user-friendly and understandable. That is critical in medical device labeling, where space may be limited. The use of stand-alone symbols on a global scale may help promote better understanding through consistent labeling across products distributed in the U.S. and foreign markets.

Scott Colburn

Scott Colburn CAPT, USPHS, FDA’s Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health Standards Program

Before this rule, FDA recognized five consensus standards that address the use of stand-alone symbols. On the same day this rule was issued, FDA updated its currently recognized consensus standards list and added three new standards containing more symbols in a published standards-recognition notice.

Symbols Glossary

The required symbols glossary is intended to help users become familiar with the meaning of the stand-alone symbols and serve as a reference for users to look up any definitions they may not recall.

The symbols glossary may be in a paper or electronic format as long as it is included in the labeling for the device. Additionally, the labeling on or within the package that contains the device must bear a prominent and conspicuous written statement identifying the location of the symbols glossary.

Symbol Statement “Rx Only” or only”

The rule also allows for the use of the commonly used symbol statement “Rx only” or “℞ only” in the labeling for prescription devices.

Learn More

On Monday, July 25, 2016, FDA conducted a webinar to help industry and patient groups learn more about this final rule and the new standards recognition notice. The slides, recording and transcript from the webinar entitled, “Final Rule: Use of Symbols in Labeling” is available on the CDRH Learn  and Webinar webpages.

Antoinette (Tosia) Hazlett, MSN, RN, is a Senior Policy Analyst at FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Scott Colburn CAPT, USPHS, is FDA’s Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health Standards Program

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

The Unique Voices of Our Patient Representatives

By: Robert M. Califf, M.D., and Heidi C. Marchand, Pharm.D.

We recently met with 21 inspirational patients and patient caregivers who have made the extraordinary commitment to become FDA patient representatives. These volunteers were in Washington to participate in our two-day Patient Representative Workshop so they can receive training that will allow them to help FDA meet its critical responsibility of guiding the development and evaluation of safe and effective medical products.

Robert Califf

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

The patient representative program has existed since 1999 and is integral to fulfilling FDA’s strong commitment to ensure that the needs and choices of patients – as well as their families, caregivers, and advocates – are incorporated in ever greater ways in the work we do.

Patients add context and content to the cutting-edge science and other empirical evidence that is so important in our regulatory decision-making.  Including their perspectives and voices in our work along the entire medical product continuum, from development to review and evaluation to post-market surveillance, offers opportunities to enhance our knowledge of the benefits and risks of medical products. It’s not only smart science; it just makes good sense. We know, for instance, that patients who live with a chronic disease are experts in the tangible effects of that disease and its treatments.

The training that patient representatives receive helps prepare them to serve on FDA advisory committees, meetings and workshops, where they are knowledgeable about what it is like to cope with their disease – including such topics as side effects from treatments and important lifestyle issues. They also provide valuable contributions as consultants to our review staff.

Heidi Marchand

Heidi C. Marchand, Pharm.D., Assistant Commissioner in FDA’s Office of Health and Constituent Affairs

To give you an idea of the unique set of skills and experiences patient representatives bring to their work, consider the stories and experiences we heard at the workshop.

One was an elite world class athlete, who initially thought her pain was muscular in nature before it was diagnosed as a serious blood clot. She has been on a series of different products since then and is now intimately familiar with what it is like to be on anticoagulants – reflecting on both the benefits and risks of taking these medications.

Two of our patient representatives are caregivers who have a personal experience with a rare disease, Batten’s Disease, a fatal, inherited disorder of the nervous system. Sadly, each lost a young son to the disease. But in the face of this tragedy, these two mothers have advocated tirelessly to find a cure for this disease and worked to educate other parents.

Another mother related the story of her daughter who, at age 16, survived two craniotomies to remove a lemon-sized brain tumor. The daughter went on to receive of 48 weeks of chemotherapy and 8 weeks of brain and spine radiation. The daughter is now 33 years old and doing well. And the mother told us how critical it was for her daughter to take an opioid to relieve her pain. This kind of input, from those who have experienced it first hand, is critical to our future decisions.

2016 FDA Patient Representative Group photo

FDA Patient Representatives at the 12th Annual FDA Patient Representative Workshop, hosted by FDA’s Office of Health and Constituent Affairs

The stories that these patient representatives tell are moving. But even more moving – and indeed inspirational – is their commitment to the future. That’s why they were selected – because of their individual involvement with their respective patient communities, their analytical skills, and their ability to maintain an open mind and consider options.

While we will help train them about the nuts and bolts of FDA – such as the various pathways that products take to get to market – it is their personal experience and their ability to understand and to articulate the perspectives, concerns, and experiences of patients – that makes them truly special.

As we continue to evaluate potential treatments and cures for different diseases, we must make sure that patients are more than simply statistics in this equation. They are real people, with names, faces, and, thanks to these patient representatives, important voices who represent an essential piece of the puzzle to be solved.

FDA is committed to looking for new and better ways to integrate the patient voice. Our patient representatives are an important piece of this commitment. They have an extraordinary impact. We thank them for their service and commitment, and look forward to working with them.

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

Heidi C. Marchand, Pharm.D., is Assistant Commissioner in FDA’s Office of Health and Constituent Affairs

Addressing Global Challenges through Transatlantic Cooperation

By: Howard Sklamberg, J.D., Lou Valdez, and Donald Prater

Howard Sklamberg

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

On a recent trip to Brussels, our FDA delegation met with many of our European Union (EU) regulatory counterparts and stakeholders to discuss ways to strengthen our shared commitment to product safety and public health.  

Reflecting the broad scope of our transatlantic dialogue, we engaged on an array of issues, including supply chain safety, quality metrics, risk-based surveillance, data integrity, mutual reliance, and food safety systems.

Building on previous exchanges between FDA and the European Parliament (EP), we first met with Members of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, known as ENVI.  ENVI Committee members visited FDA in 2013 and 2015 to share their perspective on how certain health-related topics are being addressed in the European Union. In addition, our FDA delegation exchanged views on recent trilateral cooperation with India and China on Good Clinical Practices and food safety and other approaches to cooperation on the international stage.

Lou Valdez

Mary Lou Valdez, FDA’s Associate Commissioner for International Programs

We then met with the head of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health and Food Safety (DG SANTE), Director General Xavier Prats-Monné, and his colleagues.

We shared our observations on several topics, including:

  • How drug development has changed, including globalization of suppliers and distributors;
  • The challenges among regulatory bodies in keeping pace with risk-based allocation of inspection resources;
  • The complexity of the global supply chain and the need to collaborate on enforcement;
  • The significant progress being made on the Mutual Reliance Initiative (MRI);
  • Pharmaceutical GMP inspections; and
  • The interaction among FDA’s Europe, China, and India offices and regulatory counterparts in the EU and Governments of China and India.
Donald Prater

Donald Prater, D.V.M., Director of the Europe Office in FDA’s Office of International Programs.

We then turned to food safety. Currently, the U.S. and the European Commission are working on a Food Safety Systems Recognition arrangement, a program that FDA has developed to increase regulatory cooperation and build toward reliance on the work of regulatory counterparts.

Such cooperation is facilitated through the reciprocal assessment of one another’s food safety systems to ensure the safety of foods produced under one another’s oversight. The United States already has an arrangement in place with New Zealand and recently signed one with Canada.

We also reviewed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and discussed ways FDA and the European Commission can assist suppliers in the EU to better understand the FSMA requirements. Acknowledging that food safety standards are quite high in the United States and the EU, we discussed ways we can leverage the systems on both sides of the Atlantic to further protect consumers and more efficiently use our oversight resources globally.

FDA and EU Delegations in Brussels

A U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) delegation met with many of their European Union (EU) regulatory counterparts in Brussels to discuss ways to strengthen the shared commitment to product safety and public health. Pictured from left to right are: Karin Kadenbach, Member European Parliament (MEP); Sandy Kweder, Deputy Director, FDA’s European Office; Lou Valdez, FDA’s Associate Commissioner for International Programs; Matthias Groote, MEP; Howard Sklamberg, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy; and, Susanne Melior, MEP.

Next up were meetings on medical devices and cosmetics with the Directorate General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship, and SMEs, also known as DG GROWTH.

We were welcomed by Carlo Pettinelli, Head of the Directorate for Consumer, Environmental and Health Technologies, and we discussed the key objectives of the Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) of the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF). Mr. Pettinelli acknowledged the importance of MDSAP, and indicated that the European Commission would continue to provide coordination and communication to support the engagement of EU Member States in the program.

We also set aside time for discussion with key industry stakeholders representing medical products – primarily drugs and devices, including, the American Chamber of Commerce Healthcare Committee to the EU and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Association (EFPIA). There we reviewed FDA’s Pharmaceutical Quality and MRI initiatives.

Our trip concluded with a media roundtable and a briefing to the Deputy Chief of Mission and staff at the U.S. Mission to the European Union. Our FDA Europe Office is based at the USEU and provides critical support to U.S. Ambassador Anthony Gardner.

Throughout all our meetings, one theme was crystal clear: Transatlantic cooperation is vitally important to address the challenges and opportunities of a globalized marketplace.  By carefully evaluating and understanding each other’s regulatory systems, there is tremendous potential to better allocate our resources based on risk, and improve the safety of food, medical products, cosmetics, and other products around the world.

Howard Sklamberg, J.D., is the Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy

Mary Lou Valdez is the Associate Commissioner for International Programs

Donald Prater is Director of FDA’s Europe Office