Upload
scott
View
12
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Regulatory Challenges During Medical Device Development
Citation preview
Regulatory Challenges During Device Development
July 25th, 2012
Center for Clinical Trials & Product Development
ABIA's Unique Convergence
ABIA Devices &
Therapies for Optimum Patient
Outcomes
Orthopaedics Clinical Trials
Hoyt Musculoskeletal
Lab
Global Top Polymer Science
Tech Transfer
Skeletal Biology Clinical
Simulation
Pediatric Orthopaedics
Regional Burn Center
Orthopaedics
Wound Healing
Calhoun Lab
ABIA – Success Through Nationally Distinct Centers of Innovation
ABIA brings together scientists, physicians, engineers, researchers and entrepreneurs through its five interconnected Centers of Innovation
Center for Biomaterials & Medicine Medical Device Development Center Center for Simulation & Integrated Healthcare Education Center for Community Health Improvement Center for Clinical Trials & Product Development
CCTPD Value Proposition
CCTPD provides clients with a unique depth and breadth of expertise in domestic & global device and drug development allowing clients to realize optimal clinical utility & speed to market: – Integrated, optimal Regulatory, Clinical,
Development Strategies and Planning – Single stop full service support
Regulatory Challenges During Device Development
Regulatory Background Development Process Overview Critical Decision Points Clinical Data Considerations Guiding Principles Recent FDA Guidance Conclusion
Regulatory Background Development strategy and pathway significantly influenced by device classification: – Class I & II – Predicate and substantial equivalence (flexibility /
challenge) – Class III PMA device has rigorous, significant FDA oversight,
demands robust clinical evidence of safety and effectiveness, generally lengthy process, and costly!
In-Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) present additional unique challenges
Evaluation based on typical production batches,
FDA also issues specific guidance documents for most devices
Regulatory Background – cont’d Design Controls – 21 CFR Part 820.30
Regulation offers a framework for FDA expectations during development: – Regulations not meant to be prescriptive, but require
manufacturers to comply with the “spirit and intent”. – Adapt to fit device development needs. – Formal, documented, somewhat structured approach that
provides traceability and links from inception (design inputs) to finished distributed device.
– Records should result in a Design History File
Initial challenge for the device developer – to what extent do I comply, and how – Process must seamlessly integrate with FDA’s regulations
7
Regulatory Background – cont’d Intended Use Statement
Intended use is critical to the definition and classification of a device (development pathway): A novel intended use can force a Class III designation Distinction between intended use and indication for use Selection of initial intended use based on marketing and business reasons (speed to market) – Follow on indications / intended uses
Basic Development Model
Ideation/ Discovery
Bench Testing • Non Clinical
Evaluation • Iterative
• Design Modifications
Design / Technology Transfer
User or Device Requirements Concept
User Requirements Design Input Document
Prototype Design with Preliminary Specifications
Pre-Human Safety Testing
Human Testing / Clinical
Performance Specifications
Final Product Testing Validation
Manufacturing / Production Process / Records
High Level Design Review
Detailed Design Review
Critical Decision Points
Ideation Phase – It is never too early – Regulatory classification dictates development pathway
Predictability of regulatory pathway – Take advantage of competitive intelligence – Monitor regulatory trends, legislative climate – When and how should I approach FDA? – Take a critical, unbiased approach
Look for pitfalls, and how “FDA” as audience might react
Review predicates, both favorable and unfavorable to strategy, evaluate pros and cons, take a position and provide unbiased support. – Tendency for most evaluators is to seek devices supportive of
desired strategy Obtain expert regulatory input
Critical Decision Points – cont’d
Development Phase What data is required to support the submission – 510(k)? – Preclinical / Bench test data? – Human clinical data – how robust a trial? Review predicates in FDA database – What if there are no predicates? – How predictable is the de Novo Pathway? Review MAUDE database for adverse events
Critical Decision Points – cont’d
Is an IDE appropriate? Significant versus non-significant risk device questions – How to make determination – IRB issues – How many studies? – Is a small pilot appropriate before a confirmatory
study? When to approach the Agency
Clinical Data Considerations
How is the device going to be used, and by whom? Unlike systemic drugs, devices may fail in a clinical setting due to user related issues. How large a clinical trial, RCT, or single arm, historical controls, etc What type of trial design is appropriate? – Open, Blinded (single, or double) To what extent do GCPs apply? Are foreign trials / data acceptable, and if so under what circumstances?
Guiding Principles Regulatory framework and strategy as early as possible in the development process Intended Use Statement is critical to strategy, development plan Field intelligence provides useful tips (competitive devices, FDA databases, trends). FDA input earlier on provides useful insights, but the manufacturer still has the burden to support position. Clinical trials for the most part should be robust, and well controlled. Develop key milestone “check-ins” for potential regulatory risks
Recent FDA Guidance - The Pre-Submission Program
Replaces Pre-IDE program and broadens scope to include NSR devices. Provides mechanism for obtaining FDA input on development programs in addition to the traditional IDE process. Specific language around clinical trial guidance when trials are not mandated by the regulation. Overall goal is to provide a level of predictability to the regulatory process.
Conclusion
Regulatory challenges should be identified and addressed as early in the concept phase as possible, and throughout the development process: – Intended Use Statement – Regulatory Classification – Clinical Data
Incorporate independent expert opinion Fall back / contingency plan essential.
Questions, Comments??
Thank you
Critical Decision Points – cont’d When to approach Agency
Necessity of a meeting must be carefully considered, and possibly done for early collaboration, significant development strategic issues – Currently no real mechanism for early feedback (proposed guidance)
Play out all the possible outcomes and fallback positions Is it to obtain agreement, guidance, or current FDA thinking on a subject matter? Remember, there is no such a thing as an “off the record” meeting with FDA – There is no current mechanism for providing “binding” FDA opinion prior to a
formal submission – New guidance attempts to mimic drug PDUFA Meeting and pre-IND Meeting
paradigm – Critical to craft a position, provide support (pros and cons – unbiased) and present
to FDA, no open ended questions: – Format similar to drug development positioning and requesting concurrence
Reputable regulatory consult a “must”.