While communications from health authorities continue to pour in regarding actions they are taking to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EMA published three new items that merit attention from the life sciences industry. Two of them result from the pandemic; the third has been under development.
This article is the first in a two-part series explaining how to successfully harmonize disparate quality systems when two companies merge. Here in Part 1, we will focus on what not to do when reconciling two quality systems, providing real-life examples — drawn from the author’s experiences — from each phase of QMS harmonization.
A host of factors come in to play when evaluating biocompatibility, including how the medical device is sterilized, how the device is used, what body parts it makes contact with, and selecting testing approaches.
The draft guidance calls for sponsors of new drug and biologics license applications to apply population PK analysis, which is frequently used to guide drug development on therapeutic individualization.
The majority of biologic products today are launched as some form of combination product, stringently regulated by the FDA through 21 CFR Part 4. This article looks at important manufacturing, packaging, and other factors that developers of combination products must consider and why they need to be considered early in the device development program.
Not only must new IoMT patents make it through the typical granting process, the market’s size suggests that post-grant challenges may become increasingly common.
It is critical that companies in the medical device space have comprehensive, well-written, and descriptive procedures not only for documentation, but for assessing the impact of any and all changes, no matter how minor.
The guidance looks at what constitutes a manufacturing site change, when a manufacturer should submit a PMA supplement, what documentation should be submitted to the FDA with a site change supplement, and more.
This article examines a report issued by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, resultant of an audit of the FDA’s internal processes to ensure cybersecurity in the postmarket phase of medical devices – as well as the FDA’s disagreements with the findings and what this means for manufacturers going forward.