510(k) Data Debated In Comments On FDA Draft Guidance
This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet
Executive Summary
Device companies say non-clinical data should be given more prominence in FDA guidance on benefit-risk factors to consider when determining substantial equivalence of 510(k) devices with different technological characteristics from a predicate. But a coalition of consumer groups argues that the draft guidance underplays the need for clinical data.
You may also be interested in...
Paradigm Persists: FDA Finalizes 510(k) Guidance Without Special 510(k) Changes
FDA has finalized an important guidance on 510(k) substantial equivalence, but decided to hold off on including sections that would overwrite the popular 1998 “The New 510(k) Paradigm” guidance that describe the abridged special and abbreviated 510(k) routes. Industry strongly objected to FDA’s proposed changes to the special 510(k) program in the 2011 draft 510(k) guidance.
Belgium Aims To Drive Biologic Competition Through Tendering
New tendering rules in Belgium aim to improve competition between biosimilars and originators, for example by setting contract durations for tendering contracts and limiting the criteria for such contracts.
EU Bodies Agree On Ways To Future-Proof EMA Funding System
EU ministers say that implementing an appropriate fee structure that is more in line with actual costs will promote innovation in the pharmaceutical sector while ensuring “fair access” to safe and effective medicines for patients.