On July 28, 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will hold a public advisory committee meeting to discuss skin lesion analyzer (SLA) technology and its application to detecting skin cancers in various patient care settings. This meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee will focus on algorithm-based SLA devices for adjunctive detection of skin lesions, including skin cancers, and stands to provide industry another layer of thinking on FDA’s perspective on artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) device technologies.

In announcing this meeting, FDA explained that in recent years it has observed an increased interest in SLA devices employing AI/ML. The agency is seeking expert input from the panel on approaches to evaluate the performance of SLA devices, which have a range of technologies and indications.

The committee will discuss and provide recommendations to FDA on: (1) the diagnosing standard, or ground truth, that should be used as a comparison for the performance of diagnostic devices, e.g., histology, consensus opinion of a panel of dermatologists, opinion of a single dermatologist, or other means; (2) acceptable sensitivity and specificity thresholds based on the target diagnosis (melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma) or intended user (dermatologist, primary care physician, lay user); (3) patient characteristics, including lower or higher incidence populations, that should be tested before marketing; and (4) the balance of increased access with risk mitigation measures that are appropriate when the devices are used by lay people, by populations with very high or very low incidence of melanoma, by populations with low incidence, but high mortality associated with melanoma, or by the target diagnosis/lesion type.

Additionally, on July 29, 2022, the committee will discuss the possible reclassification of two class III, PMA approved computer-aided melanoma detection devices, MelaFind (P090012) and Nevisense (P150046), both of which are intended for use on cutaneous lesions suspicious for melanoma when a dermatologist chooses to obtain additional information when considering biopsy. According to the FDA announcement, “The committee will discuss if there is sufficient information to reclassify computer-aided devices for adjunctive diagnostic information of lesions suspicious for melanoma from class III to class II, and what special controls may be appropriate to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” if they are reclassified.

This meeting, and any actions the FDA takes as a result, could offer industry further insight into the FDA’s approach to regulating AI/ML diagnostic and screening products more broadly.

The meeting will be held virtually on July 28, 2022, from 9 am to 5:45 pm ET and July 29, 2022, 9 am to 4 pm ET. Comments received on or before July 11, 2022 will be provided to the committee and the public docket will remain open for comment for FDA’s consideration until August 29, 2022.

For more information see the Meeting Notice on the Federal Register.

The annual Food & Drug Law (FDLI) conference will be held on June 14-15, bringing together experts from the federal government, industry, the private bar, non-profit, patient and consumer advocates, consulting organizations, and academia to address complex legal, regulatory, compliance, and policy issues facing the FDA-regulated industry.  Goodwin is a proud sponsor of the conference and partner Brian Burgess is a featured speaker on the panel, Interchangeable Biosimilars – Emerging Legal Issues and Trends.  During this session, the speakers will discuss what can be learned from the first interchangeable approvals and what it tells us about FDA’s interchangeability framework.  The speakers will also address what the competitive landscape for biologics looks like, how the statutory standard regarding “any given patient” may play out, and whether applicants will be able to use real world evidence to support interchangeable licensure.

Let our Goodwin team know if you will be attending the FDLI Annual Conference. For additional information about the conference, please click here.

In a recent publication we helped co-author, we examined ClinicalTrials.gov entries and their possible impact on informing potential subjects of their eligibility to participate in clinical trials. In particular, we analyzed certain clinical trials focused on HIV treatment or prevention that allowed entry of pregnant women to assess the use of pregnancy-related terms in each trial’s description and inclusion/exclusion criteria, such as those relating to gestational age and trimester. The assessment focused on evaluating the potential utility of ClinicalTrials.gov for pregnant women and their healthcare providers in identifying potential clinical research in which they may be eligible to participate.  In brief, we found that descriptors and terminology can play an important role in communicating with providers and prospective subjects about eligibility for participation. While our findings are in the context of HIV research and pregnant women, our takeaways could apply to other disease areas and populations where specific terminology may play a role in successful identification and recruitment of eligible patients, particularly where competition for patients presents an ongoing challenge, such as rare diseases.

Read the full article in Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications.

On January 11, 2022, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a proposed National Coverage Determination (NCD) decision memo limiting Medicare coverage for Biogen’s new Alzheimer’s drug, Aduhelm.  Under the terms of the NCD – despite FDA’s 2021 approval of the drug – CMS will only pay for Aduhelm for Medicare beneficiaries who are enrolled in a qualifying clinical trial to assess the drug’s safety and its effectiveness in slowing the progression of Alzheimer’s.  CMS stated, “[B]ased on the public comments submitted previously and evidence CMS reviewed, the potential for harm, and important questions that remain, we have determined that coverage with evidence development through clinical trials is the right decision for Medicare patients, clinicians, and caregivers, and we look forward to receiving feedback on the proposal.”  The proposed NCD is open to public comment for thirty (30) days, and a final decision from CMS is expected on April 11.  If the proposed NCD is finalized, CMS must evaluate each submitted clinical trial to verify that it meets the qualifying criteria specified in the proposed NCD.

Aduhelm has been approved by FDA for the treatment of Alzheimer’s since June 2021.  This is the first drug approved by FDA for the treatment of Alzheimer’s in almost 20 years.  In 2019, two clinical trials for Aduhelm were paused due to data showing the drug was of no benefit to patients’ cognitive function. However, after Biogen re-analyzed one of its trials, it decided to apply to the FDA for approval. The FDA used the accelerated approval process but can withdraw Aduhelm from the market if Biogen’s new clinical trial demonstrates that the drug is ineffective. The FDA pivoted on the approval itself, later recommending Aduhelm only in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia. Patient advocacy groups such as the Alzheimer’s Association played an important role in pressuring FDA to approve Aduhelm, given the minimal advancements in drug treatment in the space.

Since receiving FDA approval, Biogen has faced tough scrutiny about Aduhelm’s efficacy and cost.  Aduhelm’s initial annual price of $56,000 elicited widespread criticism.  In December 2021, Biogen announced that it would reduce the drug’s price to $28,200 for some patients.   Biogen most likely reduced the price in response to slower than anticipated sales and CMS’s announcement it would increase Medicare’s monthly Part B premium for outpatient care in anticipation of the Aduhelm’s price impact.  Adding to Biogen’s challenges, an FDA advisory committee agreed almost unanimously that the clinical trials did not provide strong enough evidence to corroborate Aduhelm’s efficacy data.  However, based on the clinical trials it did review, FDA claimed that Aduhelm could reduce clumps of plaque in the brain, which is likely to slow dementia.  The discrepancy between the advisory committee’s and FDA’s findings coupled with broad criticism of the FDA led the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General to conduct a probe into the FDA’s approval process for Aduhelm.

Adding to the complexity, State Medicaid programs have also been vocal in protesting CMS’s decision.  Unlike Medicare, Medicaid is required to cover all FDA-approved drugs regardless of a drug’s clinical efficacy.  Therefore, had Medicare determined not to cover Aduhelm, all costs would shift to the state Medicaid programs.  Though some states and insurers have already declined to cover Aduhelm, CMS’s ruling is likely to influence other payors to refuse coverage.

While some commenters and industry observers have questioned whether CMS’s decision with respect to Aduhelm somehow creates a new, default secondary clinical testing and approval threshold for drug makers, it is more likely that the Medicare agency’s decision on Aduhelm reflects the unique circumstances posed by the drug (i.e. unclear efficacy concerns, conflicting FDA guidance, and an unusually high price point).  Whether CMS will make a habit of limiting coverage for innovative drugs only to beneficiaries participating in additional clinical trials remains to be seen, but is not likely.  We will continue to monitor trends and developments at CMS with respect to coverage and payment decisions on new therapeutics and treatments, including additional research and testing requirements that the agency may impose.

During the COVID-19 public health emergency, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued hundreds of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) and numerous enforcement policies to facilitate the availability of important medical devices. On December 23, 2021, FDA published two draft guidances setting forth the Agency’s proposed process for transitioning the multitude of devices brought to market under these circumstances to full compliance with FDA requirements:

• Transition Plan for Medical Devices Issued Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency (the “EUA Transition Draft Guidance”); and
• Transition Plan for Medical Devices That Fall Within Enforcement Policies Issued During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Public Health Emergency (the “Enforcement Policies Transition Draft Guidance”).

In our recent Alert, we summarize some key takeaways from FDA’s proposed transition plan for manufacturers of devices marketed under a COVID-19 EUA (“EUA Devices”) and devices marketed under one of more than 15 COVID-19 enforcement policies listed in the guidance (“Enforcement Policy Devices”). Read More

The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) approved 50 new drugs and biological products in 2021 (not including the vaccines, cellular and gene therapy products, or other products approved in 2021 by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research).  As in past years, small molecule drug approvals dominated the list.

Of the 50 approved new drugs and biological products, 33 were small molecule drugs and 17 were monoclonal antibodies and other big molecules drugs.  A new ADC (antibody drug conjugate) was approved, Tivdak®, and a bispecific antibody was also approved, Rybrevant®. Notably, a small interfering RNA drug was approved, Leqvio®, for the treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

As small and big molecule drugs enter the clinic, Goodwin’s patent attorneys focus on securing not only composition of matter patent protection, but additional patent protection derived from clinical data. Learn more about additional patent protection secured from the clinic in Goodwin’s Patent Savvy Executive video.

Each new drug and biological product can be found in the FDA’s Orange Book or the FDA’s Purple Book. To learn more about the Orange Book and how to determine patent terms on approved drugs, visit Goodwin’s Patent Savvy Executive video.

See the full list here.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, decentralized clinical trials and remote patient monitoring and data acquisition became a necessity, accelerating the use of digital health technologies in clinical trials.  Acknowledging that technological advances “have revolutionized the ability to remotely obtain and analyze clinically relevant information from individuals” and that “DHTs [ ] are playing a growing role in health care and offer important opportunities in clinical research,” the FDA issued during the last week of December 2021 a draft guidance, Digital Health Technologies for Remote Data Acquisition in Clinical Investigations, which provides recommendations for sponsors, investigators and other stakeholders to facilitate the use of DHTs for remote data acquisition  in clinical trials, including clinical trials that will be submitted to the FDA in a marketing application for a medical product.

The draft guidance defines a digital health technology (DHT) as a system that uses computing platforms (such as a mobile phone, tablet, or smart watch), connectivity, software, and/or sensors for healthcare and related uses.  Some DHTs may meet the definition of “device” under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but the draft guidance specifically does not address the circumstances under which a DHT would meet the statutory definition of a device and notes that DHTs used in clinical investigations generally are exempt from premarket clearance or approval requirements, as long as the clinical investigation is compliant with 21 CFR Part 812.

The draft guidance explains that sponsors must foremost ensure that a DHT is “fit-for-purpose” for its proposed use in a specific clinical investigation.  In essence, the level of verification and validation associated with the DHT must be sufficient to support its use and interpretability in the clinical investigation.  This may require sponsors to work with the developer or manufacturer of the DHT, patients, caregivers, and other technical and clinical experts to assure that the DHT is suitable for its intended purpose in the clinical investigation.  The draft guidance advises sponsors to select a DHT that corresponds to the clinical outcome to be assessed, and that considers the clinical trial population and the design/operating characteristics of the DHT that may affect trial participants’ use of the DHT.

Sponsors should also be prepared to describe how they will analyze data collected from DHTs in their statistical analysis plan, including prespecifying “intercurrent events” (defined as events that occur after treatment initiation that result in missing or erroneous data associated with the clinical outcome of interest) that may be related to the DHT and/or the general purpose computing platform, and how these events will be accounted for in the analysis.  To maintain data integrity, FDA recommends that the output of the DHT and associated metadata be transmitted to a durable electronic data repository that is protected from alterations and maintained until the end of the record retention period.  FDA generally will consider data in such a repository to constitute the source data and should be made available for inspection and to reconstruct and evaluate the clinical investigation.

FDA further notes that “unique privacy risks” may arise when DHTs are used in a clinical trial.  Sponsors are advised to evaluate the risk of potential disclosures of personally identifiable information through breaches of the DHT, the general computing platform on which the DHT runs, and/or the durable electronic repository, assure appropriate security safeguards are in place, and consider including such information in the informed consent documents for the clinical trial.

The draft guidance recommends that sponsors:

• train trial participants and trial personnel on the use of DHTs and develop a plan to provide technical assistance to trial participants and study personnel;
• develop a risk management plan to address potential problems with the DHT (e.g., interference between mobile applications, or loss, damage and replacement);
• develop a safety monitoring plan that addresses how abnormal measurements related to participants’ safety measured by DHTs will be reviewed and managed; and
• develop a contingency plan for any changes to the DHT (e.g., discontinuation of a specific model, operating system updates)

The draft guidance includes appendices with specific examples of how different types of DHTs could be incorporated into a clinical investigation.  Given the particular circumstances of each DHT and clinical investigation, the draft guidance encourages sponsors to engage early with the appropriate FDA Center responsible for the medical product under development to discuss the proposed use of DHT(s) in a clinical investigation and, for DHTs or DHT-collected endpoints that require qualification, engage with an appropriate FDA qualification program, such as the Medical Device Development Tool Qualification Program.

Comments on the draft guidance are due March 23, 2022.

Last week the FDA issued another draft guidance in its series of recent guidance documents setting forth the agency’s views regarding the generation and use of Real-World Data (RWD) and Real-World Evidence (RWE) for prescription drugs and biological products. (see our recent post on FDA’s draft guidance relating to registries).

This latest draft guidance, Considerations for the Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products, clarifies the agency’s expectations for sponsors submitting new drug applications (NDAs) or biologics license applications (BLAs) with studies using Real-World Data (RWD) to support the safety or effectiveness of drugs or biological products, when such studies are not subject to FDA’s investigational new drug (IND) application requirements under 21 CFR Part 312.  The draft guidance focuses on non-interventional (a.k.a. observational) studies, in which patients receive a drug during routine medical practice, according to a medical provider’s clinical judgment and based on patient characteristics, rather than via assignment to a study arm and according to a clinical trial protocol.

Key considerations outlined in the guidance:

• Sponsors designing a non-interventional study to support a marketing application should engage early with the relevant FDA review division (e.g., through a Type C meeting) and be prepared to submit draft protocols and SAPs for FDA feedback before conducting the study analyses.
• To assure the FDA that the results of a non-interventional study were not skewed to favor a particular conclusion, sponsors should provide evidence that the non-interventional study protocol and statistical analysis plan were finalized prior to reviewing outcome data and before performing prespecified analyses. Sponsors should provide a justification for selecting relevant data sources and generate audit trails in their datasets. FDA also recommends that sponsors post their non-interventional study protocols on a publicly available website, such as ClinicalTrials.gov.
• Sponsors must be able to submit patient-level data from the RWD. Where a third party owns or controls the RWD, sponsors should have agreements with such parties to ensure that patient-level data and source data to verify the RWD can be provided to the FDA for inspection, as applicable. Sponsors should have well-documented programming codes and algorithms that would allow the FDA to replicate the study analysis using the same dataset and analytic approach.
• Non-interventional studies should be monitored. The FDA advises sponsors to use a risk-based quality management approach, with a focus on preventing or mitigating important and/or likely risks to study quality.  If a non-interventional study does not include any activities or procedures involving patients, monitoring can focus on assuring the data integrity of the RWD, from extraction to analysis to reporting of results.  When a non-interventional study protocol includes ancillary activities or procedures, sponsors should exercise appropriate oversight of processes critical to human subject protection.
• Adverse events that a sponsor becomes aware of through a non-interventional study must be submitted in accordance with postmarketing safety reporting regulations. However, the agency acknowledges that if a sponsor is conducting a non-interventional study that appropriately utilizes only a subset of a larger dataset, the sponsor will not have to search the entirety of the dataset for adverse events.
• Sponsors should take responsibility for all activities related to the design, conduct and oversight of a non-interventional study that is being submitted for regulatory review. This includes selecting qualified researchers, ensuring the study is conducted in accordance with the protocol, maintaining and retaining adequate study records, and maintaining an electronic system to manage RWD that complies with 21 CFR Part 11. Where a sponsor engages third parties to perform certain study-related tasks, the responsibilities of each organization should be documented and made readily available to the FDA upon request.

Comments on the guidance should be submitted to the docket by March 9, 2022.

Today, developers of innovative medical devices are increasingly utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies to derive important insights with the promise of transforming the delivery of healthcare. Yet, concerns regarding the transparency of AI/ML-enabled devices, or the degree to which information about such devices is communicated to stakeholders, threatens not only perceptions as to the safety and effectiveness of such devices by regulators, but also trust in such technologies from patients and healthcare providers alike.

Read the full article written by Steven Tjoe in PM360 Magazine.

Visit the Goodwin on Medtech hub to stay informed on important developments affecting medtech innovators and investors.

Showing no signs of food coma, the FDA issued draft guidance on the Monday following the Thanksgiving holiday weekend that outlines considerations for sponsors proposing to design a registry or use an existing registry to support regulatory decision-making about a drug’s effectiveness or safety.  This draft guidance represents the Agency’s latest response to the mandate in the 21^st Century Cures Act to issue guidance on the use of real world evidence in regulatory decision-making, and expands on the Framework for FDA’s Real-World Evidence Program from December 2018.

The draft guidance, Real-World Data: Assessing Registries to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Drug and Biological Products, defines a registry as “an organized system that collects clinical and other data in a standardized format for a population defined by a particular disease, condition, or exposure,” and identifies three general categories of registries: disease registries, health service registries, and product registries.

Given the range of registry types, FDA notes that registry data can have varying degrees of suitability for use in a regulatory context depending on several factors, including how the data are intended to be used for regulatory purposes, the patient population enrolled, the data collected, and how registry datasets are created, maintained, curated, and analyzed.  FDA advises sponsors to be mindful of both the strengths and limitations of using registries as a source of data to support regulatory decision-making.  In general, the draft guidance advises that (i) a registry that captures objective endpoints, such as death or hospitalization, is more likely to be suitable to support regulatory decision-making than a registry that collects subjective endpoints, such as pain; and (ii) a registry that is specifically designed to answer a particular research question is more likely to be useful to support regulatory decision-making than a registry that was designed for a different purpose.

At the same time, the Agency acknowledges that an existing registry can be used to collect data for purposes other than those originally intended, and that leveraging an existing registry’s infrastructure to support multiple purposes can be efficient.  Therefore, the draft guidance describes factors sponsors can use to assess the relevance and reliability of a registry’s data to determine whether the registry data may be fit-for-use.

When determining relevance of registry data, the draft guidance advises sponsors to consider, among other things, whether the data elements captured by the registry are sufficient given the intended use or uses of the registry (e.g., external control arm vs. a tool to enroll participants in an interventional study) and whether the methods involved in patient selection may have impacted the representativeness of the population in the registry.

When assessing the reliability of registry data, the draft guidance advises sponsors to assure the registry has appropriate governance measures in place to help ensure the registry can meet its objectives, such as processes and procedures governing the operation of the registry, adequate training of staff, and other recommended practices including:

• Defined processes and procedures for data collection, management and storage;
• A data dictionary and rules for validation of queries and edit checks of registry data;
• Conformance with 21 CFR part 11, as applicable, including access controls and audit trails; and
• Adherence to applicable human subject protection requirements, including safeguarding the privacy of patient health information.

The draft guidance specifically recommends that sponsors interested in using a registry to support a regulatory decision should meet with the relevant FDA review division (e.g., through a Type C meeting), before conducting a study that will include registry data.  Sponsors also should be prepared to submit protocols and statistical analysis plans for FDA feedback prior to conducting a study that includes data from registries.

Comments on the guidance should be submitted to the docket by February 28, 2022.