Tags
Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Food & Drug Administration, Institute of Medicine, Jeffrey Shuren, Margaret Hamburg, Medical device, US Food and Drug Administration
FDA Seeks Public Views on Proposed 510(k) Plans
NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – The US Food and Drug Administration today said that it has opened a public comment period in response to a new report from the Institute of Medicine calling on the agency to make substantial changes to the way it reviews medical devices.
The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health will receive comments through Sept. 30 concerning the IOM report, “Medical Devices and the Public’s Health, The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35.”
In the report, which was commissioned by FDA as part of a larger agency review process, IOM recommended that FDA should replace its current premarket approval process in favor of a hybrid model that would emphasize post-market review and rely less on the similarities between proposed medical devices and others that have already been approved.
Today, FDA stated that the opening of the public comment period does mean that it endorses the IOM recommendations and that it will not adopt any of those recommendations before the end of the comment period.
Upon the release of the report, CDRH Director Jeffrey Shuren released a response arguing that the 510(k) process is not broken and that activities are already underway and more are in development to revamp the program to make it more effective.
“FDA believes that the 510(k) process should not be eliminated but we are open to additional proposals and approaches for continued improvement of our device review programs,” Shuren said in a statement Friday.
“While FDA has not yet had the opportunity to fully evaluate this report,” the agency stated today in its public docket announcement, “[it] does recognize the strong public interest in the comprehensive assessment of the 510(k) process and the IOM report.”
Related articles
- Institute of Medicine – Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process (earlsview.com)
- U.S. advisers call for new medical device regime (earlsview.com)
- US Congress Women Rosa L. DeLauro Takes FDA To Task Over Comments re IOM Report (earlsview.com)
- 510(k) reforms: FDA downplays the impact of the IOM study on the eve of its release (earlsview.com)
- 510(k) approval process is too big to fail no matter how flawed it may be (earlsview.com)
- Report: IOM review of the FDA 510(k) process due Friday (earlsview.com)
- Report could sway FDA device review process (earlsview.com)
- Advisory panel calls for revamping FDA approval process for medical devices (earlsview.com)
- Barry Meier – Study Faults Approval Process for Medical Devices (earlsview.com)
- Report: FDA’s Medical Device Approval Process Is Flawed (earlsview.com)
I write and read e-mails until blue in the face. Someone somewhere will read my info. a pay the attention it requires in order to make progress.
People are discussing the hip issue, the 510k plan, and a number of other related factors.
Why don’t they ask me or others that have suffered from these devices. As long as the answers and information we provide is fact, and doesn’t reflect hostilaty, we know, we lived through this, the decision makers seem to complicate a system that is all ready over complicated. Here us, listen to us and act upon our information. Not by forming new committees, or committies to watch dog others. Simplify, adhere to the rules and carry a big stick. Why is this so difficult?
Howard Sadwin
Howard
I hate to say it – but they don’t ask because they don’t want to know – you and I are just statistics that didn’t work – they much prefer the 90% that did work out OK.
Earl
Pingback: Did IOM Put the Final Nail in the Coffin of Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants? « Earl's View
Pingback: IOM Gives FDA The wrong prescription on medical devices & 510(k) « Earl's View
Pingback: Medical Devices — Balancing Regulation and Innovation « Earl's View
Pingback: Sadwin gets to the heart of the Issues with FDA 510(k) « Earl's View
Pingback: FDA Loosens Premarket Notification Requirements for 30 Medical Device Types « Earl's View
Pingback: Medical Device Aproval – Divisive Devices or UFC 510(k): FDA Meets IOM « Earl's View
Pingback: IOM chair discusses 510(k) report: origins, findings, response « Earl's View