Premarket Review Performance Goals Donna-Bea Tillman Director, Office of Device Evaluation Director, Office of Device Evaluation Don St. Pierre Deputy.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Elizabeth Mansfield, PhD OIVD Public meeting July 19, 2010
Advertisements

Consolidation Communicable Diseases User Stories: Meeting Agenda 1.News from other domains 2.Recap of a previous meeting 3.Consolidation of three more.
1 Testing in the Open Market Testing in the Open Market AAAS Colloquium on Personalized Medicine: Planning for the Future June 2, 2009 Courtney C. Harper,
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDAs website for reference purposes only. It.
BME-IDEA Workshop, September 28, 2005
Donna-Bea Tillman AU/OPM II December 2004
Introduction to Competency-Based Residency Education
Strengthening the Medical Device Clinical Trial Enterprise
1 FDA Update - CDRH Markham C. Luke, MD PhD Deputy Director for Clinical Office of Device Evaluation, CDRH, FDA May 15, 2012 NORD Corporate Council.
Lessons Learned in Initiating and Conducting Risk Assessments within a Risk Analysis Framework: A FDA/CFSAN Approach Robert Buchanan DHHS Food and Drug.
CBER Managed Review Process Sheryl A. Kochman Deputy Director, DBA, OBRR, CBER September 15, 2009.
ONDQA Perspective on Post Approval Changes Eric P. Duffy, PhD Director, Division of Post-Market Evaluation, ONDQA, CDER, FDA Public Meeting: Supplements.
Radiological Devices Advisory Committee Meeting November 18, 2009 John A. DeLucia iCAD, Inc.
GLOBAL REGULATORY STRATEGY CONSIDERATIONS SCIENTIFIC SARAH POWELL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REGULATORY STRATEGIES SEPTEMBER 14-17, 2008 BOSTON, MA.
FDA Resources and Meetings FDA/EMA Orphan Designation and Grant Workshop Silver Spring, Maryland FDA Campus (White Oak) October 12, 2012 Bill Sutton Deputy.
Office of Combination Products: Current Initiatives
Patient Centered Medical Home What it means for Duffy Health Center Board Presentation September 10 th 2012.
1 THE UNIQUE ROLES OF IRB IN MEDICAL DEVICE CLINICALL TRIAL Chiu Lin, Ph.D. CITI, May, 2009 CITI, May, 2009.
Premarket Review Performance Goals Patricia B. Shrader BD November 18, 2004.
Implementing universal Lynch Syndrome screening in a large healthcare system.
Understanding the Pre-IDE Program: FDA Perspective
Second Annual Japan CDISC Group (JCG) Meeting 28 January 2004 Julie Evans Director, Technical Services.
UNCLASSIFIED10/12/ :41 AM Slide 1 Division of Regulated Activities and Compliance.
March 28, 2006 Combination Products: Preparing for the Journey March 28, 2006 Pamela J. Weagraff Principal Consultant.
1 Critical Path Research: Getting New Technology from Bench to Bedside A Device Perspective FDA Science Board November 5, 2004 Dan Schultz Director, CDRH.
New Draft Guidance for Multiplex Tests Elizabeth Mansfield and Michele Schoonmaker Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD) CDRH/FDA.
1 Combination Products: Jurisdictional Issues MassMEDIC Presentation March 28, 2006 Janice Hogan, Esq. Partner Hogan & Hartson, LLP
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
1 Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA II) Legislative Recommendations April 30, 2007.
Medical Device Consultants, Inc. Investing in a Clinical Program: Advice in a Challenging Economic Time MassMEDIC Medical Device Clinical Trials Update.
Two-Way Communications Exchange of information during the Review process between Regulatory Authority and Sponsor.
Utah Life Science Summit Nov Phil Triolo, PhD RAC President, Phil Triolo and Associates LC.
Current Plan for Critical Path Initiative Janet Woodcock, M.D. Acting Deputy Commissioner For Operations November 5, 2004.
FDA Regulatory and Compliance Symposium
Competency-Development Project 08-October MDIC 2 What is the Competency-Development Project? ‏ Purpose: The purpose of this project is to improve.
Regulatory Decision Making D. Kathleen Wright, Reviewer Division of Microbiology Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety ( OIVD ) Food.
CDRH Update Jeff Shuren Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health November 5, 2015 Center for Devices and Radiological Health1.
Update: Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 Blood Products Advisory Committee March 13, 2003 Mary Elizabeth Jacobs, Ph.D. Associate Director.
Research in the Office of Vaccines Research and Review: Vision and Overview Jesse Goodman, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Outline LEARNING OBJECTIVES REVIEW TEAM AMD COUNTERPARTS Team Composition Qualification PREPARATORY PHASE.
Research in the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies: Vision and Overview Jesse Goodman, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation.
Critical Path Initiative Sousan S. Altaie, Ph.D. Scientific Policy Advisor OIVD/CDRH.
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA Site Visit Introduction Kathryn M. Carbone, M.D. Associate Director for Research.
COPYRIGHT ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. LEGAL DISCLOSURE. November 25, 2002 PRESENTATION TO: Public Hearing: FDA Regulation of Combination Products November.
Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated.
Click to edit Master subtitle style Competence by Design (CBD) Foundations of Assessment.
Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety Donald St.Pierre Deputy Director for New Device Evaluation RAPS 2003 Annual Conf. 10/22/03.
Device Updates in FDASIA MDUFA III RA SAIC – 9 th April 2013 Karen Jaffe, MS, MBA, RAC or
November 9, 2015 February 20, 2017 Using real world evidence – industry perspective Pma indication expansion Melissa hasenbank, phd Sr. Clinical Research.
FDA's Two New Draft Guidance on Software and Device
Strengthening the Medical Device Clinical Trial Enterprise
The CRT of EFS Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going
Jeff Shuren, MD, JD Center for Devices and Radiological Health U. S
U.S. FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health Update
Jeff Shuren, MD, JD Center for Devices and Radiological Health U. S
Appropriate Regulation of Adjunctive Devices: Embolic Protection
FDA’s IDE Decisions and Communications
How to Put Together an IDE Application
FDA Perspective on Cardiovascular Device Development
Balancing Regulation and Innovation: An FDA Division of Cardiovascular Devices Perspective Bram Zuckerman, MD, FACC Director, FDA Division of Cardiovascular.
The FDA Early Feasibility Study Pilot and the Innovation Pathway
The Current PMA Requirements
CDRH 2010 Strategic Priorities
Introduction of New Technology: An FDA Division of Cardiovascular Devices Perspective Bram Zuckerman, MD, FACC Director, FDA Division of Cardiovascular.
FDA-CDRH in the Next Decade A Vision for Change
Combination products The paradigm shift
FDA Resources and Meetings
510(k)s.
Larry Kessler, Sc.D. Director
Presentation transcript:

Premarket Review Performance Goals Donna-Bea Tillman Director, Office of Device Evaluation Director, Office of Device Evaluation Don St. Pierre Deputy Director, Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety MDUFMA Stakeholder Meeting November 18, 2004

MDUFMA’s Promise FDA will turn dollars into shorter review times. FDA will turn dollars into shorter review times.

Meeting the MDUFMA goals while maintaining our commitment to good science. Meeting the MDUFMA goals while maintaining our commitment to good science. MDUFMA’s Challenge

How are we making this happen?

Office of Device Evaluation Office of Surveillance Surveillance & Biometrics Office of Science & Engineering Laboratories OfficeofCompliance Office of Communication, Education, and Radiation Programs Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety Office of Management Operations New Vision of Pre-Market Review

What are we doing to foster this vision? Shared hires Shared hires eRoom eRoom eConsults eConsults Shared agreement on timelines….. Shared agreement on timelines….. -> Shared commitment to the goals

How are we spending your money?

Hiring!

Light Blue -- Other MDUFMA Review Process FTEs: Adverse Exp. Reporting, Lab Based Studies, Problem ID Resolution, Science Based Training, Domestic Standards, and Postmarket Studies. Red -- Premarket FTEs: Application Review, Guidance and Standards, Bioresearch monitoring and Manufacturers assistance. CDRH Device Review Process FTEs

CDRH Device Review FTEs by Category

Physicians* - 15 Physicians* - 15 Visiting Scholar – senior level clinicians, surgeons Visiting Scholar – senior level clinicians, surgeons Fellow - physician during fellowship training Fellow - physician during fellowship training Resident – physician during residency training Resident – physician during residency training Engineers* - 42 Engineers* - 42 Visiting Scholar – senior level engineer Visiting Scholar – senior level engineer Co-op students Co-op students Interns Interns Physicists* - 2 Physicists* - 2 Scientists* - 5 Scientists* - 5 *includes students Medical Device Fellowship Program (FY04)

All those new hires need to be trained All those new hires need to be trained The good news: training for new recruits improved their proficiency The good news: training for new recruits improved their proficiency The bad news: training for new recruits took a lot of resources and is not complete. The bad news: training for new recruits took a lot of resources and is not complete. We also need to maintain the skills of existing staff We also need to maintain the skills of existing staff Training!

Improved IT infrastructure! Current IT needs Current IT needs Tracking Tracking Reviewing Reviewing Collaborating Collaborating Managing correspondence Managing correspondence Archiving - Image Archiving - Image Electronic Review? And maybe one day…. And maybe one day….

Just the Numbers For complete report, please see:

Status of FY03 PMA/O & PT-PMA/S receipt cohort Complete In Process (August 18, 2004) 100% of those with final decisions completed in < 320 days

CDRH PMA Performance FY 2003 Receipt Cohort as of 9/30/ Original PMAs and P-T Supplements filed 47 Original PMAs and P-T Supplements filed 41 FDA decisions; 6 pending applications 41 FDA decisions; 6 pending applications % of decisions meeting goal: 95% % of decisions meeting goal: 95% % of cohort meeting goal (to date): 83% % of cohort meeting goal (to date): 83% % awaiting MDUFMA decision: 13% % awaiting MDUFMA decision: 13% FY 2006 Goal: 80% of FDA decisions within 320 FDA days (Decision = approval, approvable, approvable pending GMP, not approvable, denial) (Decision = approval, approvable, approvable pending GMP, not approvable, denial)

CDRH PMA Performance FY 2003 Receipt Cohort as of 9/30/ st action = major deficiency letter 25 1 st action = major deficiency letter % of actions meeting goal: 84% % of actions meeting goal: 84% FY 2005 Goal: 75% within 150 FDA days 22 “all other” 1 st actions 22 “all other” 1 st actions % actions meeting goal: 96% % actions meeting goal: 96% FY 2005 Goal: 75% 180 FDA days FY 2003 first action cohort is closed FY 2003 first action cohort is closed

Status of FY04 PMA/O & PT-PMA/S receipt cohort Complete In Process (August 18, 2004) 100% of those with final decisions completed in < 320 days

CDRH PMA Performance FY 2004 Receipt Cohort as of 9/30/ Original PMAs and P-T Supplements filed 41 Original PMAs and P-T Supplements filed 11 FDA decisions; 30 pending applications 11 FDA decisions; 30 pending applications % of decisions meeting goal: 100% % of decisions meeting goal: 100% % of cohort meeting goal (to date): 27% % of cohort meeting goal (to date): 27% % awaiting MDUFMA decision: 73% % awaiting MDUFMA decision: 73% FY 2006 Goal: 80% of FDA decisions within 320 FDA days (Decision = approval, approvable, approvable pending GMP, not approvable, denial) (Decision = approval, approvable, approvable pending GMP, not approvable, denial)

CDRH PMA Performance FY 2004 Receipt Cohort as of 9/30/ st action = major deficiency letter 20 1 st action = major deficiency letter % of actions meeting goal: 85% % of actions meeting goal: 85% FY 2005 Goal: 75% within 150 FDA days 12 “all other” 1 st actions 12 “all other” 1 st actions % actions meeting goal: 100% % actions meeting goal: 100% FY 2005 Goal: 75% 180 FDA days 9 with first action pending (22% of cohort) 9 with first action pending (22% of cohort)

Improving PMA performance Goal: Shorten both cycle and total decision times Goal: Shorten both cycle and total decision times … which will improve predictability and decrease time-to-market.

Original PMA Milestones: 1-cycle Scenario Filing Review Scientific Review Panel Planning Closeout Review PMA Received` Panel Go/NoGo Panel Meeting Filing Letter Final Decision 180 days Status Letter Consults Complete Interactive Review

Original PMA Milestones: 2-cycle Scenario Filing Rev Scientific Review Panel Planning Closeout Review PMA Received Panel Go/NoGo Panel Meeting Filing Letter Final Decision 320 days Major Def. Letter Scientific Review Clock Stops Staus Letter Interactive Review Consults Complete

510k Goals

FY03 510k Performance FY03 Performance FY05 Goal Final decision <90 days 76%75% First action <75 days 58%70% Second action < 60 days 50%70% Need to improve performance on cycle goals

Meeting the MDUFMA goals: Review Process for Traditional 510ks Preliminary determination that no significant additional info needed FDA Initial ReviewInteractive Review Final Decision (<90 total days) Scenario #1

Meeting the MDUFMA goals: Review Process for Traditional 510ks FDA Initial ReviewInteractive Review Determination that significant additional info needed Hold Final Decision (<90 total days) Scenario #2 Preliminary determination that no significant additional info needed

Meeting the MDUFMA goals: Review Process for Traditional 510ks FDA Initial Review Review Determination that significant additional info needed Hold Final Decision (<90 total days) Scenario #3 Hold Review Determination that significant additional info needed

Preliminary FY04 510k Performance FY04 Performance FY05 Goal Final decision <90 days 89%75% First action <75 days 78%70% Second action < 60 days 81%70% Preliminary data suggests improvement in performance on cycle goals 29% of cohort awaiting final decision as of 9/30/04

What about the Science?

Program to Assess Quality of Premarket Reviews Focuses on selected cross-cutting areas (e.g., biocompatibility) Focuses on selected cross-cutting areas (e.g., biocompatibility) Retrospective (post-decision) peer assessments of sampled reviews Retrospective (post-decision) peer assessments of sampled reviews Quality assessment teams with defined criteria Quality assessment teams with defined criteria Pilot underway Pilot underway

Where have we been? We’ve made progress in meeting the goals, but it has come at a price.

The price of early success Our staff are working at the limits of their abilities Our staff are working at the limits of their abilities “Luxuries” such as training, standards, and guidance development have been neglected “Luxuries” such as training, standards, and guidance development have been neglected

Where are we now? We’ll continue to improve performance, but there are additional challenges ahead.

The number of combination products is growing… Coronary Stent Pacing Lead Bone graft … necessitating new kinds of technical expertise and new regulatory paradigms.

The number of 510ks with clinical data is growing… Embolic protection devices … requiring more in-depth review, including occasional Panel input. Vascular anastomsis devices for CABG Image-guided bronchoscopes Barbed sutures Glaucoma shunts Daily wear contact lenses CPAP devices for apnea

The number of expedited submissions is growing…. expedited PMAs in FYO4 vs. 3 expedited PMAs in FYO3 14 … shortening timeframes and bringing increasingly complex scientific questions.

Where are we going? The best is yet to come!

Systematic management of timeframes Systematic management of timeframes Improvements to IT infrastructure Improvements to IT infrastructure Well-trained staff Well-trained staff More guidance documents More guidance documents Open communication Open communication Strategies for Meeting Beating the MDUFMA Goals

The REAL promise of MDUFMA More interaction More interaction Stronger science Stronger science Greater predictability Greater predictability Better public health Better public health

…and a continuing commitment to Least Burdensome Principles

Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD) Turbo 510(k) Pilot Turbo 510(k) Pilot Software/program development Software/program development Pre-IDEs Pre-IDEs Number/interactions increasing Number/interactions increasing Decision Summaries Decision Summaries Public/information sharing Public/information sharing Webpage Re-design in process Webpage Re-design in process Based on your feedback Based on your feedback Internal training (challenging the status quo) Internal training (challenging the status quo) Stressing TPLC, Communication, Collaboration Stressing TPLC, Communication, Collaboration

Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD) Also, Proactive in: Also, Proactive in: Bioterrorism activities to improve development and access to rapid diagnostics Bioterrorism activities to improve development and access to rapid diagnostics CLIA improvements (including development of waiver criteria, program development) CLIA improvements (including development of waiver criteria, program development) Pharmacogenomics Pharmacogenomics

MDUFMA Questions?