Globalization and FDA’s New Partnerships to Ensure Product Safety

By: Howard Sklamberg

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

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

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

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

The Medical Device Single Audit Program

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

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

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

Mutual Recognition Agreements

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

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

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

Food Safety Systems Recognition

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

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

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

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

What’s Next? 

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

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

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

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

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

Erin Cutts

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

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

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

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

Owen Faris

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

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

Jeffrey Shuren

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Competition to Collaboration: precisionFDA Challenges

By: Taha Kass-Hout, M.D., M.S., Zivana Tezak, Ph.D., and Elaine Johanson

Next week, we will announce the winners of the first precisionFDA challenge.

Taha Kass-Hout

Taha A. Kass-Hout, M.D., M.S., FDA’s Chief Health Informatics Officer (CHIO) and Director of FDA’s Office of Health Informatics

We set up precisionFDA as an online, cloud-based, virtual research space to allow scientists from academia, industry, health care organizations, and government to work together on creating tools to evaluate a method of “reading” DNA known as next generation sequencing (or NGS). The ultimate goal of precisionFDA is to foster innovation and develop regulatory science around NGS tests, which are essential to achieving the promise of President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative. So far, the response to precisionFDA has been gratifying, with participants calling precisionFDA “refreshing”, “innovative,” and “a new paradigm in regulatory science.” The community currently boasts more than 1,500 users from 600 organizations, with more than 10 terabytes of genetic data stored.

To engage users and encourage sharing of data and ideas, precisionFDA has offered two competitions to date. These competitions are motivating community members to demonstrate the effectiveness of their tools, test the capabilities of the precisionFDA platform, and engage the community in discussions and data analysis that will provide new insights and serve as a comprehensive source of information about reference data and software pipelines used to analyze sequencing results.

Zevana Tezak

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

The first precisionFDA challenge, the Consistency Challenge, closed in April 2015, with 21 entries from 17 submitters. Participants were given two datasets of whole genome sequences from a known human sample, sequenced at two different sites and generously donated to precisionFDA by Garvan Institute of Medical Research and Human Longevity, Inc. Challenge participants were instructed to use the informatics pipeline (software) of their choice to identify genetic variants and check for consistency between results in the provided datasets. The top performers will be announced in person by FDA Commissioner Robert Califf on May 25, 2016. At the time of his announcement, we will post detailed information here on all the recognitions and how the top performers were selected. So stay tuned!

The second challenge, the Truth Challenge, closes on May 26, 2016, and was designed in collaboration with the Genome in a Bottle consortium and the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health. Participants are expected to identify genetic variants in one known and one unknown sample dataset. The goal is to see how close they come to the truth when analyzing data from a human sample with variant results unknown to them, which we will reveal at the end of the challenge. An exciting characteristic of this challenge is that the Genome in a Bottle consortium will release for the first time new high confidence variant calls for the unknown sample dataset (we refer to in this challenge as “truth dataset”) for the human sample at the end of the contest.

Elaine Johanson

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

The knowledge generation potential for precisionFDA is immense, and leverages the collaboration of the global community to help solve challenges that will ultimately provide insight to regulation to ensure the safety and efficacy of genetic tests. The platform offers users the ability to assemble and run apps, learn from other experts, share lessons learned, participate in competitions, and help to develop standards for assessing the effectiveness of genetic tests.

With new challenges and opportunities for ongoing discussions and collaborations between FDA and the global community, we look forward to the precisionFDA community facilitating and advancing development and assessment of new tools and tests in this fast growing field of genetic testing.

 

Taha A. Kass-Hout, M.D., M.S., is FDA’s Chief Health Informatics Officer (CHIO) and Director of FDA’s Office of Health Informatics

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

What We Mean When We Talk About EvGen Part II: Building Out a National System for Evidence Generation

By: Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H., and Robert M. Califf, M.D.

In an earlier FDA Voice blog post, we discussed a pair of concepts – interoperability and connectivity – that are essential prerequisites for the creation of a successful national system for evidence generation (or “EvGen”). In this post, we take a look at how we would apply these constructs as we go about building such a system.

Building EvGen

Rachel Sherman

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

Creating knowledge requires the application of proven analytical methods and techniques to biomedical data in order to produce reliable conclusions. Until recently, such analysis was done by experts operating in centers that typically restricted access to data. This “walled garden” approach evolved for several reasons: the imperative to protect the privacy and confidentiality of sensitive medical data; concern about the negative consequences that could arise from inappropriate, biased, or incompetent analysis; and, the tendency to see data as a competitive asset. Regardless of the specific reason, the result has been the same: widespread and systemic barriers to data sharing.

If we are to reverse these tendencies and foster a new approach to creating evidence of the kind envisioned for EvGen, we must bear in mind several critical principles:

  1. There must be a common approach to how data is presented, reported and analyzed and strict methods for ensuring patient privacy and data security.
  2. Rules of engagement must be transparent and developed through a process that builds consensus across the relevant ecosystem and its stakeholders.
  3. To ensure support across a diverse ecosystem that often includes competing priorities and incentives, the system’s output must be intended for the public good and be readily accessible to all stakeholders.

What Would EvGen Look Like in Practice?

Robert Califf

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

What would a robust national platform for evidence generation look like? It may be helpful to envision EvGen as an umbrella for all activities that help inform all stakeholders about making treatment decisions.

The task of evaluating drugs, biologics, or devices encompasses different data needs and methods. However, all share a common attribute: the characterization of individuals and populations and their associated clinical outcomes after they have undergone diagnostic or prognostic testing or been exposed to a therapeutic intervention.

Moreover, when medical practice itself is part of the evaluation, characterization of the organization and function of delivery systems is critical. In other words, the kinds of evidence needed to evaluate medical products for safety and effectiveness and the kinds of evidence needed to guide medical practice overlap substantially.

Over the last decade, there has been enormous progress in the area of “secondary use,” in which data collected for one purpose (for instance, as part of routine clinical care) can be reused for another (such as research, safety monitoring, or quality improvement).

The Sentinel Initiative, launched in response to a Congressional mandate to develop an active postmarket risk identification and analysis system, is one example. Modeled after successful programs such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, Sentinel allows FDA to conduct safety surveillance by actively querying diverse data sources, primarily administrative and insurance claims databases but also data from electronic health record (EHR) systems, to evaluate possible medical product safety issues quickly and securely.

Another example, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet), is a national system that includes many of the attributes needed for EvGen. PCORnet includes participation from government, industry, academia, and patients and their advocates. Whereas FDA’s Sentinel system is built primarily on claims data repurposed for safety surveillance, PCORnet is designed to leverage EHR data in support of pragmatic clinical research.

The NIH’s Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory has demonstrated through its Distributed Research Network that the concept of secondary data use can be extended into the realm of prospective pragmatic interventional trials. The NIH Collaboratory program, which includes many of the same health care systems involved in Sentinel and PCORnet, has 10 active trials underway.

In addition, the Reagan-Udall Foundation Innovation in Medical Evidence Development and Surveillance (IMEDS) Evaluation Program is exploring governance mechanisms to ensure that private-sector entities, notably regulated industry, can collaborate with Sentinel data partners to sponsor safety queries about marketed medical products. Such measures have the potential to expand the involvement of private-sector partners beyond the arena of methodology, further helping to ensure that Sentinel continues its expansion into a national resource.

Similarly, efforts are underway to establish a National Device Evaluation System (NDES). As currently envisioned, the NDES would be established through strategic alliances and shared governance. The system would build upon and leverage information from electronic real-world data sources, such as data gathered through routine clinical practice in device registries, claims data, and EHRs, with linkages activated among specific data sources as appropriate to address specific questions.

As substantial work already is being done in all of these areas, valuable experience is being gained. The next step is to ensure that these pioneering efforts coalesce into a true national resource. More on that in future postings.

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

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

Strengthening Partnerships: FDA’s China Office Engages in Key Outreach with Chinese Provincial FDA, Academia, and Industry

By: S. Leigh Verbois, Ph.D.

独木不成林,单弦不成音

Dú mù bù chéng lín, dān xián bù chéng yīn

‘A single tree makes no forest, one string makes no music.’

“A single tree makes no forest, one string makes no music.”This old Chinese proverb inspired FDA’s China Office, as members of our staff embarked on a five-day trip to meet with provincial FDA regulators, industry, and academia in China’s Yangtze River Delta region.

FDA Staff with Zhejiang FDA

FDA Staff Meets with Zhejiang FDA
Hangzhou, China
Front Row, Left to Right: Gang Wang (FDA China Office), Bo Ju (Zhejiang FDA), Yuanchang Shao (Zhejiang FDA), Leigh Verbois (FDA China Office), Jue Chen (Zhejiang FDA), Chiang Syin (FDA China Office), William Sutton (CDRH),
Back Row, Left to Right: Jinfeng Liang (Zhejiang FDA), Wenhua Zheng (Zhejiang FDA), Yini Ye (Zhejiang FDA), Lixin Shen (Zhejiang FDA), Nicole Taylor Smith (FDA China Office), Lixia Wang (FDA China Office)

The Yangtze River Delta region is an economic area that encompasses the Shanghai municipality, Zhejiang and Jiangsu provinces. The commercial epicenter, which accounts for 20 percent of China’s gross domestic product, is home to a significant number of FDA-regulated medical product manufacturers.

We traveled more than 3,300 kilometers (1,980 miles) to meet with key leaders and experts to strengthen partnerships, share information, and build the foundation for future cooperative engagement. Our first stop was Shanghai, where I had the great fortune to be able to address hundreds of students and faculty at East China University of Science and Technology’s School of Pharmacy and China Pharmaceutical University.

My message to the students was that they are the future leaders who will be in charge of the next generation of pharmaceutical innovation and data integrity.

In Shanghai, we also had the opportunity to sit down with U.S. Embassy Consul General Hanscom Smith to compare notes and to talk about current FDA priorities underway in the region.

China Pharmaceutical University (CPU)

China Pharmaceutical University (CPU)
Nanjing, China
CPU Faculty and Students attending Dr. Leigh Verbois’s Presentation on “CDER’s Novel Drug Approvals and Priorities”

The team then rode a high speed bullet train to Nanjing to meet with Jiangsu FDA, the regional regulator. This type of information sharing between the provincial FDA and the FDA China Office supports our shared mission of assuring that medical products produced in China meet U.S. safety standards.

On day three, we traveled again by bullet train to Suzhou where we partnered with China’s Association for Medical Device Industry to hold a two-hour, town hall meeting with almost 200 of China’s big device manufacturers that export products to the United States.

Working with FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), our team provided information on Unique Device Identification (UDI) requirements. In the greater China region, it is estimated that there are nearly 4,000 medical device establishments affected by these requirements.

Hangzhou, China

Hangzhou, China
One of the many bridges in Hangzhou to symbolize “Building Bridges” between the FDA China Office and our Chinese stakeholders

The next morning, we headed for Hangzhou. After about two hours by train, we arrived in Hangzhou ready to meet with provincial FDA officials. Our meeting focused on specific ways we could collaborate on future medical device and drugs outreach, and more effectively share information.

The final day of our weeklong journey started with an industry roundtable focused on pharmaceuticals, held in partnership with Zhejiang FDA. As fellow regulators, we joined together to engage in substantive discussion with representatives from major manufacturers located in the Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Shanghai regions, many of whom were interested in recent data integrity efforts in China. The FDA team then boarded our last train back to Shanghai for a final meeting with local officials that focused on our mutual priorities, as well as ways to expand and leverage efforts going forward.

The team flew back to Beijing feeling very satisfied that we accomplished much and clearer than ever that continued collaboration with Chinese regulators, industry and academia will help to ensure that medical products manufactured for the U.S. market are safe and effective. After all, one tree alone does not make a whole forest.

Leigh Verbois, Ph.D., is Director of FDA’s China Office in the Office of International Programs

What We Mean When We Talk About EvGen Part I: Laying the Foundation for a National System for Evidence Generation

By: Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H., and Robert M. Califf, M.D.

Rachel Sherman

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

Across the clinical research enterprise, there is a growing awareness of serious shortfalls in the current paradigm of generating the scientific evidence that supports medical product evaluation and clinical care decisions and the need to modernize methods and expectations surrounding this evidence base.

We know, for instance, that most clinical practice guideline recommendations are not based on high-quality evidence, typically derived from appropriately designed randomized controlled trials. We also know that adherence to standards supported by such high-quality evidence results in better outcomes for patients.

There is reason to believe that we’ve arrived at a tipping point where previously separate, “siloed” efforts can be linked to create a national system for evidence generation (EvGen). In this first of a series of posts, we’ll take a look at the elements required to build such a national system, beginning with a pair of foundational concepts—interoperability and connectivity.

Interoperability

Robert Califf

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

Put simply, interoperability is the idea that different systems used by different groups of people can be used for a common purpose because those systems share standards and approaches. To take one example: modern train tracks employ agreed-upon standards in terms of track gauge and other specifications so that many different kinds of vehicles can safely use the rail system.

In similar fashion, a national system for evidence generation that applied common data standards and definitions could “lay the track” for significant improvements in the exchange of biomedical data. Patients, consumers, professional groups, payers, the medical products industry, and health systems all stand to benefit from potential gains in efficiency and reductions in cost that would accompany standardized approaches to data collection, curation, and sharing, once up-front investments are absorbed. Then, with these standards in place, effort could be devoted to generating actionable knowledge rather than simply managing data.

Connectivity

Establishing interoperable systems is a critical step in building a national system for evidence generation. An equally important step is to enable collaboration among the many groups that generate data, for example patients, clinicians, hospital systems, health insurance organizations. Evidence is derived from high-quality data that often originates from many different sources or settings. We can create an interconnected environment that leverages all the available data to provide answers to important public health questions. A defining characteristic of such a network is the ability to leverage all available data for different tasks as needed, allowing the network to integrate complex relationships between data input and output. Coupled with interoperable standards, a national system for evidence generation based on these principles will be capable of generating very large quantities of data and enabling those data to flow among system components.

The result? Researchers will be able to distill the data into actionable evidence that can ultimately guide clinical, regulatory, and personal decision-making about health and health care.

These two core constructs represent the essential scaffolding that must be developed and put in place to support a national system for evidence generation. In our next posting, we’ll examine ways we can begin building and continuously improving such a system for the benefit of all stakeholders.

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

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

Developing a Consensus Voice: The Combination Products Policy Council

By: Nina L. Hunter, Ph.D., and Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H.

We recently announced the launch of lean process mapping to build a better system for combination products review – one that is more cohesive, more collaborative, more systematic, and more predictable. We look forward to providing an update on this effort soon.

Nina Hunter

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

In the meantime, we’re delighted to announce the creation of FDA’s first Combination Products Policy Council. Building on successful cross-cutting efforts such as the Biosimilars Implementation Committee and the Medical Policy Counsel in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Council will be a senior-level, agency-wide forum for discussing, resolving, and implementing product and policy issues. Because of the multiple FDA organizations involved, this council will have decisional authority on issues relating to combination products, cross-labeled products, and medical product classification.

The different parts of a combination product and the different product types labeled for use together in premarket applications for combination products and cross-labeled products can create complexities for reviewers and require expertise from multiple centers.

Rachel Sherman

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

Currently, the lead center manages the review process using procedures associated with the center-specific application type and user fee goal dates. But differences in statutory and regulatory requirements for different application types, including evidentiary standards, data requirements, and review limitations, make it challenging to coordinate reviews and ensure alignment and consistency in addressing issues across centers.

In response to these complexities, we are creating a key component in the Office of the Commissioner that can convene parties across centers, foster understanding and consistent application of requirements, and develop a unified FDA position on issues that arise. Although this process will not replace the existing formal appeal process, we anticipate that many issues can be resolved before reaching that stage.

Council Mission

  • Modernize the inter-center consultation process and related aspects of combination product and cross-labeled product review;
  • Promote development of innovative, safe, and effective combination products and cross-labeled products; and
  • Promote alignment in addressing challenging medical product classification issues.

The Council will be composed of representatives from relevant centers and offices. In addition, experts from within centers and other FDA offices will provide expertise as needed for specific policy topics under consideration.

In addition to serving as a communications hub, the Council will be involved in the development of agency-wide and external communications such as draft guidances, publications, and blog posts on policy decisions. FDA envisions a variety of topics may be relevant for consideration by the Council, including such “front-burner” items as product jurisdiction and designation practices, application of evidentiary standards for clearance/approval to combination products and cross-labeled products, and regulation of novel products.

We’ve heard that many stakeholders desire a voice in modernizing the combination review program, and we’re listening! In addition to the topics listed above, one of the Council’s priorities will be to consider how best to seek input from external stakeholders on various issues. We would hope that such comments include policy issues recommended for discussion and recommendations on how the policy issue could be addressed or implemented.

We are confident that the Council’s efforts will ensure transparency and consistency in our approach to combination product policy development and implementation, ultimately helping to ensure that innovative combination products marketed to the American people are safe, effective, and appropriately labeled. We look forward to providing updates about the Council, as well as additional modernization efforts in this important area.

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

Rachel E. Sherman, M.D., M.P.H., is FDA’s Associate Deputy Commissioner in the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco and the Chairperson of the Council

Priorities – Teamwork to Achieve Common Goals

By: Robert M. Califf, M.D.

With my appointment as Commissioner of Food and Drugs comes a rare and humbling opportunity—to make a positive difference at an institution that does vitally important work for the nation and its citizens. During my vetting process I received hundreds of emails and had almost as many conversations with a large and diverse group of stakeholders. Over the course of these discussions, a recurring theme emerged: namely, that setting priorities would be critical to success.

Robert M. Califf, M.D., Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationThis is hardly surprising. FDA regulates about 20 percent of the nation’s economy and, given the vast number of options, it would be easy to get lost in an overwhelming swirl of activity. In fact, at times I have been (rightfully) accused of having an excessively lengthy to-do list! But my interactions with so many of the knowledgeable, dedicated, and mission-driven people here at FDA have helped foster a clear, realistic, and focused sense of priorities and have further heightened an already strong enthusiasm for helping this awesome organization reach these ambitious goals.

FDA makes decisions in a remarkably effective and responsible way. Guided by the lodestone of our mission to protect and promote the public health, and supported by the concerted efforts of dedicated and talented professionals who examine issues within team-based systems, FDA’s Centers that form the core of our organization are able to make an enormous number of decisions every day. The vast majority of these decisions, many of which are vital to the well-being of all Americans, are made possible by a system sustained by professionalism and a well-earned reputation for high-quality and impartial judgments—despite the fact that many decisions must ultimately disappoint (or at least not fully satisfy) one or more constituencies.

I strongly believe my most important responsibility during my time at FDA is to encourage and support a professional environment that enables our remarkably dedicated workforce to thrive and to reach its fullest potential. Dramatic advances in biotechnology and information sciences, as well as continuously accelerating trends toward globalization, are ushering in an era of rapid change. But amid this change, the key to success for the Agency in accomplishing its mission remains constant—sustaining and expanding our talented workforce and ensuring that we both hire the people we need for the future while we continue to enhance our environment to ensure that we retain existing staff. To that end, I will pursue a workforce initiative designed to 1) improve the hiring system, 2) ensure that the Agency has the best possible working conditions for staff, and 3) foster professional homes for the diverse professions that make up our teams so that we are able to recruit and retain them in a very competitive market.

My top programmatic priority will likely come as no surprise, given the astonishing changes that are currently rippling through society: we must do everything possible to rapidly adapt our national and global systems of evidence generation to meet the challenges and opportunities presented by technological advances. What does this mean? I’ve noticed that when high-quality evidence is available, FDA’s scientific decision making is often straightforward. But it can be particularly challenging for the Agency when it must make scientific decisions in the absence of optimal information. In such cases, opinions may carry greater weight, and there can be an increased likelihood of dissension both inside and outside of FDA, as well as a greater risk that we may fail to most fully protect or advance the welfare of patients and the public.

FDA is a science-based, science-led organization that focuses on the needs of patients and consumers; protecting their well-being is our charge as a public health agency. The state of the art as it pertains to understanding the needs and choices of patients and the public is progressing rapidly, and we must continue to keep pace by incorporating the best methods for taking patient preferences, experiences, and outcomes into account in every part of our work.

Biomedical science is nearing a tipping point where the amount of high-quality evidence available to support our decisions is likely to increase exponentially. As a nation, we have invested over $50 billion to provide an electronic health record (EHR) for almost every American. Further, computational storage capacity and analytical power are increasing by orders of magnitude from year to year. At the same time, the advent and wide diffusion of social media are enabling direct communication with patients and consumers on an unprecedented scale. When projects such as Sentinel and the National Medical Device Evaluation System are linked with the many complementary initiatives under way at our sister agencies and at organizations outside of the government, we can (and I believe in short order will!) build a robust foundation for a system in which both private and public sectors can produce much more useful knowledge at a fraction of the cost such efforts have previously required. Indeed, a major function of FDA is to support the continued development of an effective system for evidence generation, so that the private and academic sectors can make it happen.

Accordingly, FDA is thoroughly committed to working with the many partners in our ecosystem to help build and sustain an infrastructure that produces the high-quality scientific evidence needed to guide FDA’s decisions about the drugs, medical devices, tobacco products, and food products it’s charged with regulating, as well as the decisions that healthcare providers, patients, and consumers make about their health and well-being.

In addition to this overarching priority, a number of specific critical issues are on my front burner this morning and will remain there for the foreseeable future:

  • Pain. The present epidemic of opioid overdose deaths now exceeds deaths from automobile crashes. FDA cannot solve this problem on its own—and indeed, no single entity can—but we have a critical role to play, as described in our FDA Opioids Action Plan.
  • Tobacco product deeming. Much effort has gone into developing the framework for the approach to the regulation of the broad array of tobacco products. FDA is working hard to finalize the deeming rule, which in its proposed form would extend FDA regulation over virtually all tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes, either all cigars or all but premium cigars, pipe tobacco, certain dissolvables that are not “smokeless tobacco,” gels, and waterpipe tobacco.
  • Implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This statutory directive to transform the food safety system is well on its way to being implemented, with critical regulations issued and more to come. The effort involves the complex development of a new control and risk-based system that includes the entire chain of food safety. Effective implementation of this system will require the application of cutting-edge analytical and biological science, as well as the most modern approaches to human systems management.
  • Antimicrobial resistance. Concerns about the proliferation of multidrug-resistant pathogens, as well as the sustainability of the product pipeline needed to meet this threat, continue to grow. We have a major responsibility in the federal plan, one that will involve many parts of the Agency and require that we work with the broad ecosystem, both to ensure that appropriate antimicrobials are used appropriately on farms, and that novel antimicrobials are developed, approved, and used responsibly within a framework of effective stewardship.
  • Interagency effectiveness. When we consider our mission to protect and advance the public health, as well as our duty to balance benefit and risk for patients and consumers of medical products, much of our success can be enhanced by coordinated effort across government. We have therefore continued the FDA-NIH Joint Leadership Council and the FDA-CDC meetings, and also initiated similar discussions with CMS. The Biomarkers, Endpoints and other Tools (BEST) Resource offers a powerful example of the ability of FDA and NIH to contribute to solving scientific and regulatory issues together.
  • Precision Medicine. President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative represents more than just a project. Rather, it is a window that provides a clear view of the future for biomedicine and agriculture, a future in which powerful new technologies and methods allow the precise targeting of interventions using an array of genetic, genomic, biological, clinical, social, and environmental data according to the scale needed to achieve improved health outcomes.
  • Cross-Cutting Issues. There are a great many other issues (truthfully, the number reaches triple digits) on my list of concerns. But those issues that cut across the Agency, including optimizing our approach to combination products, medical countermeasures, and improving product labeling, will benefit most from my attention and support.

A single introductory blog post is not suited for giving details about priorities or individual programs. However, I hope I’ve conveyed my enthusiasm for the work at hand, as well as my confidence that we will be able to make real and lasting improvements in many critical areas. I promise that we will follow up with frequent updates, as fostering effective communication is itself an overarching priority of immense importance to me. So expect to hear from me again soon!

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

Addressing Issues Relating to Combination Products: Human Factors

By: Jill Hartzler Warner, J.D., and Thinh Nguyen

Combination products represent an important and growing category of therapeutic and diagnostic products under the FDA’s regulatory authority. These products, which combine a drug, device, and/or biological product (referred to as “constituent parts”) with one another, do not fit into traditional categories for medical products.

Jill Warner

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

Combination products come in three basic configurations: their constituent parts may be physically or chemically combined; they may be co-packaged; or they may be separately distributed with specific labeling that provides instructions for their combined use.

The different constituent parts of a combination product can add complexity to the final product. For example, when a medical device is part of the combination product, issues that relate to how the product is used can be as important as the product itself.

Human factors engineering, and the closely related field of usability engineering, both study how people interact with technology, to understand how the design of user interfaces for technology affects the quality, experience, and outcomes of that interaction. The questions addressed by human factors studies overlap with those addressed by “medication error” assessments, another area of user-product interaction evaluation commonly applied to drugs. The understanding gained from these evaluations can be applied to the design and review of the user interfaces for FDA-regulated products to assure their safety and effectiveness.

Thinh Nguyen

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

Because the design of a combination product can have a significant impact on whether a given product is safe and effective for its intended use, human factors evaluations are a central consideration for FDA when it assesses combination products, particularly those that include certain devices.

In February 2016, FDA published draft guidance for industry and FDA staff titled “Human Factors Studies and Related Clinical Study Considerations in Combination Product Design and Development.” This draft guidance builds on principles articulated in earlier guidances that discuss human factors and medication error considerations for medical devices and drugs. When final, it will represent FDA’s thinking on when and how combination product manufacturers should perform human factors evaluations for investigational or marketing applications.

The draft guidance provides examples of combination products that include devices and describes recommendations for how to approach human factors studies for them, focusing on key challenges for developers such as:

  • The timing and sequencing of human factors studies in relation to overall development and study of a combination product;
  • How human factors studies compare with and relate to other types of clinical studies;
  • When changes to a combination product call for new human factors studies to be performed;
  • The role of simulated-use versus actual-use human factors studies; and
  • What information should be provided to the FDA, and when, to ensure timely feedback for a human factors study.

During the comment period on the draft guidance, FDA is seeking input on the overall guidance, as well as requesting that stakeholders submit examples of combination products in their comments and address whether they believe human factors studies are needed for them. The Agency is also seeking input on what challenges and development risks may arise if such studies are conducted before, in parallel to, or after major clinical studies for combination products. Input from stakeholders will help inform FDA’s final guidance in this important area. The comment period for this draft guidance closes on May 3, 2016.

Watch for more to come from FDA this year to further enhance transparency and predictability of combination products regulation. We are developing additional guidance for combination products, including current good manufacturing practices and a final rule on postmarket safety reporting. We also welcome your feedback regarding topics related to combination products that you would like us to address.

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

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

FDA and NIH Release a Draft Clinical Trial Protocol Template for Public Comment

By: Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D.

Enhancing important efforts around clinical trials continues to be a key scientific priority. Another way we can encourage clinical trials is to look for ways to help clinical investigators make clinical trials more efficient, potentially saving development time and money. Today we’re announcing a draft clinical trial protocol template developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) that should help with that.

Peter MarksThe clinical trial protocol is a critical component of any medical product development program. It’s defined in the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) E6 Good Clinical Practice: Consolidated Guidance, as describing “the objective(s), design, methodology, statistical considerations, and organization of a trial…[and] usually also gives the background and rationale for the trial”. Similarly, for medical devices, some direction has been provided in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Clinical Investigation of Medical Devices for Human Subjects — Good Clinical Practice (ISO 14155:2011). Although guidance provides information on the important content that should be included in a protocol to help ensure human subject protection and data quality, it does not describe a standardized format for presenting this information. Time spent identifying the specific elements that should be included in a protocol and how best to organize them can delay the start of a clinical trial, and lead to delays in getting important new treatments to patients. What’s more, because up to 85% of investigators have only participated in one clinical trial in their careers, many investigators lack significant experience in protocol development. It’s likely that investigators could benefit from additional help in this area.

NIH, which supports and conducts biomedical research, and FDA, which evaluates the safety and effectiveness of medical products and depends on high quality research to inform its decisions, realized this represents an opportunity to help improve the design of clinical trials. Now, the NIH-FDA Joint Leadership Council (JLC) has launched a project to develop a template that could be used by investigators developing a clinical trial protocol.

Representatives from the NIH institutes and FDA’s medical product centers collaborated to develop a template containing instructional and sample text for investigators writing phase 2 or phase 3 clinical trial protocols that require investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE) applications. Our agencies hope that the availability of the template and instructional information enables investigators to prepare protocols that are consistent and well organized, contain all the information necessary for the clinical trials to be properly reviewed, and follow the ICH E6 Good Clinical Practice guidance. Better organized, high-quality protocols will also expedite the review process at both agencies.

We are aware of other efforts in this area, including one undertaken by TransCelerate Biopharma Inc. (TransCelerate), which has issued a common protocol template intended to be the basis for a forthcoming electronic protocol. Although our initial target audiences differ, we plan to collaborate with groups like TransCelerate to help ensure consistency for the medical product development community.

We see the template as a way to facilitate creativity and innovation, not inhibit it. In the words of our NIH colleague Dr. Pamela McInnes, “Our goal is to provide an organized way for creative investigators to describe their plans so that others can understand them.” Just as ICH E6 allows considerable flexibility in the actual operations of trials using quality by design principles, the template includes the appropriate elements to be considered, but does not dictate exactly how the trial should be done—that is the work of the investigators.

NIH and FDA are seeking public comment on the draft template, which is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-043.html. Comments are accepted through April 17, 2016. We welcome feedback from investigators, investigator-sponsors, institutional review board members, and other stakeholders who are involved in protocol development and review. We are particularly interested in hearing your views on the utility of the template and whether the instructional and sample text is useful and clear.

Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D., is the Director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

More information can be found at:

NIH and FDA Request for Public Comment on Draft Clinical Trial Protocol Template for Phase 2 and 3 IND/IDE Studies

Clinical Research Policy

Clinical Trial Protocol Template