CDRH Sets Performance Goals To Reduce Draft Guidance Ambiguity
This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet
The device center has committed to metrics for draft guidance documents, trying to address complaints that policies linger too long in the draft stage and create regulatory confusion. CDRH also highlighted recent website upgrades intended to better distinguish between draft and final guidance documents.
You may also be interested in...
US FDA's device center is facing new mandates and commitments to develop guidelines for industry. The guidance-development stipulations in the 21st Century Cures Act and the recent MDUFA IV user-fee agreement are detailed below.
An FDA determination of substantial risk of illness and injury from use of absorbable powdered surgical gloves has sparked a proposed product ban by the agency.
CDRH Guidance Priorities Include Lab-Developed Tests, Adverse Event Reporting, Third-Party 510(k) Review
FDA's device center issued its annual “A List” and “B List” guidance priorities for fiscal year 2016, spotlighting efforts to address Unique Device Identification direct marking, Medical Device Reporting rules, laboratory-developed tests, 510(k) third-party review, companion diagnostics, and more.