Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘FDA, CE Mark & Global Regulatory Affairs: process management and strategic planning – GCP, GLP, ISO 14155’ Category


Author and Curator: Dror Nir, PhD

In the last couple of years we are witnessing a surge of AI applications in healthcare. It is clear now, that AI and its wide range of health-applications are about to revolutionize diseases’ pathways and the way the variety of stakeholders in this market interact.

Not surprisingly, the developing surge has waken the regulatory watchdogs who are now debating ways to manage the introduction of such applications to healthcare. Attributing measures to known regulatory checkboxes like safety, and efficacy is proving to be a complex exercise. How to align claims made by manufacturers, use cases, users’ expectations and public expectations is unclear. A recent demonstration of that is the so called “failure” of AI in social-network applications like FaceBook and Twitter in handling harmful materials.

‘Advancing AI in the NHS’ – is a report covering the challenges and opportunities of AI in the NHS. It is a modest contribution to the debate in such a timely and fast-moving field!  I bring here the report’s preface and executive summary hoping that whoever is interested in reading the whole 50 pages of it will follow this link: f53ce9_e4e9c4de7f3c446fb1a089615492ba8c

Screenshot 2019-04-07 at 17.18.18

 

Acknowledgements

We and Polygeia as a whole are grateful to Dr Dror Nir, Director, RadBee, whose insights

were valuable throughout the research, conceptualisation, and writing phases of this work; and to Dr Giorgio Quer, Senior Research Scientist, Scripps Research Institute; Dr Matt Willis, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Professor Eric T. Meyer, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Alexander Hitchcock, Senior Researcher, Reform; Windi Hari, Vice President Clinical, Quality & Regulatory, HeartFlow; Jon Holmes, co-founder and Chief Technology Officer, Vivosight; and Claudia Hartman, School of Anthropology & Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford for their advice and support.

Author affiliations

Lev Tankelevitch, University of Oxford

Alice Ahn, University of Oxford

Rachel Paterson, University of Oxford

Matthew Reid, University of Oxford

Emily Hilbourne, University of Oxford

Bryan Adriaanse, University of Oxford

Giorgio Quer, Scripps Research Institute

Dror Nir, RadBee

Parth Patel, University of Cambridge

All affiliations are at the time of writing.

Polygeia

Polygeia is an independent, non-party, and non-profit think-tank focusing on health and its intersection with technology, politics, and economics. Our aim is to produce high-quality research on global health issues and policies. With branches in Oxford, Cambridge, London and New York, our work has led to policy reports, peer-reviewed publications, and presentations at the House of Commons and the European Parliament. http://www.polygeia.com @Polygeia © Polygeia 2018. All rights reserved.

Foreword

Almost every day, as MP for Cambridge, I am told of new innovations and developments that show that we are on the cusp of a technological revolution across the sectors. This technology is capable of revolutionising the way we work; incredible innovations which could increase our accuracy, productivity and efficiency and improve our capacity for creativity and innovation.

But huge change, particularly through adoption of new technology, can be difficult to  communicate to the public, and if we do not make sure that we explain carefully the real benefits of such technologies we easily risk a backlash. Despite good intentions, the care.data programme failed to win public trust, with widespread worries that the appropriate safeguards weren’t in place, and a failure to properly explain potential benefits to patients. It is vital that the checks and balances we put in place are robust enough to sooth public anxiety, and prevent problems which could lead to steps back, rather than forwards.

Previous attempts to introduce digital innovation into the NHS also teach us that cross-disciplinary and cross-sector collaboration is essential. Realising this technological revolution in healthcare will require industry, academia and the NHS to work together and share their expertise to ensure that technical innovations are developed and adopted in ways that prioritise patient health, rather than innovation for its own sake. Alongside this, we must make sure that the NHS workforce whose practice will be altered by AI are on side. Consultation and education are key, and this report details well the skills that will be vital to NHS adoption of AI. Technology is only as good as those who use it, and for this, we must listen to the medical and healthcare professionals who will rightly know best the concerns both of patients and their colleagues. The new Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, the ICO and the National Data Guardian will be key in working alongside the NHS to create both a regulatory framework and the communications which win society’s trust. With this, and with real leadership from the sector and from politicians, focused on the rights and concerns of individuals, AI can be advanced in the NHS to help keep us all healthy.

Daniel Zeichner

MP for Cambridge

Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Data Analytics

 

Executive summary

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform how the NHS delivers care. From enabling patients to self-care and manage long-term conditions, to advancing triage, diagnostics, treatment, research, and resource management, AI can improve patient outcomes and increase efficiency. Achieving this potential, however, requires addressing a number of ethical, social, legal, and technical challenges. This report describes these challenges within the context of healthcare and offers directions forward.

Data governance

AI-assisted healthcare will demand better collection and sharing of health data between NHS, industry and academic stakeholders. This requires a data governance system that ensures ethical management of health data and enables its use for the improvement of healthcare delivery. Data sharing must be supported by patients. The recently launched NHS data opt-out programme is an important starting point, and will require monitoring to ensure that it has the transparency and clarity to avoid exploiting the public’s lack of awareness and understanding. Data sharing must also be streamlined and mutually beneficial. Current NHS data sharing practices are disjointed and difficult to negotiate from both industry and NHS perspectives. This issue is complicated by the increasing integration of ’traditional’ health data with that from commercial apps and wearables. Finding approaches to valuate data, and considering how patients, the NHS and its partners can benefit from data sharing is key to developing a data sharing framework. Finally, data sharing should be underpinned by digital infrastructure that enables cybersecurity and accountability.

Digital infrastructure

Developing and deploying AI-assisted healthcare requires high quantity and quality digital data. This demands effective digitisation of the NHS, especially within secondary care, involving not only the transformation of paper-based records into digital data, but also improvement of quality assurance practices and increased data linkage. Beyond data digitisation, broader IT infrastructure also needs upgrading, including the use of innovations such as wearable technology and interoperability between NHS sectors and institutions. This would not only increase data availability for AI development, but also provide patients with seamless healthcare delivery, putting the NHS at the vanguard of healthcare innovation.

Standards

The recent advances in AI and the surrounding hype has meant that the development of AI-assisted healthcare remains haphazard across the industry, with quality being difficult to determine or varying widely. Without adequate product validation, including in

real-world settings, there is a risk of unexpected or unintended performance, such as sociodemographic biases or errors arising from inappropriate human-AI interaction. There is a need to develop standardised ways to probe training data, to agree upon clinically-relevant performance benchmarks, and to design approaches to enable and evaluate algorithm interpretability for productive human-AI interaction. In all of these areas, standardised does not necessarily mean one-size-fits-all. These issues require addressing the specifics of AI within a healthcare context, with consideration of users’ expertise, their environment, and products’ intended use. This calls for a fundamentally interdisciplinary approach, including experts in AI, medicine, ethics, cognitive science, usability design, and ethnography.

Regulations

Despite the recognition of AI-assisted healthcare products as medical devices, current regulatory efforts by the UK Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the European Commission have yet to be accompanied by detailed guidelines which address questions concerning AI product classification, validation, and monitoring. This is compounded by the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the UK’s future relationship with the European Medicines Agency. The absence of regulatory clarity risks compromising patient safety and stalling the development of AI-assisted healthcare. Close working partnerships involving regulators, industry members, healthcare institutions, and independent AI-related bodies (for example, as part of regulatory sandboxes) will be needed to enable innovation while ensuring patient safety.

The workforce

AI will be a tool for the healthcare workforce. Harnessing its utility to improve care requires an expanded workforce with the digital skills necessary for both developing AI capability and for working productively with the technology as it becomes commonplace.

Developing capability for AI will involve finding ways to increase the number of clinician-informaticians who can lead the development, procurement and adoption of AI technology while ensuring that innovation remains tied to the human aspect of healthcare delivery. More broadly, healthcare professionals will need to complement their socio-emotional and cognitive skills with training to appropriately interpret information provided by AI products and communicate it effectively to co-workers and patients.

Although much effort has gone into predicting how many jobs will be affected by AI-driven automation, understanding the impact on the healthcare workforce will require examining how jobs will change, not simply how many will change.

Legal liability

AI-assisted healthcare has implications for the legal liability framework: who should be held responsible in the case of a medical error involving AI? Addressing the question of liability will involve understanding how healthcare professionals’ duty of care will be impacted by use of the technology. This is tied to the lack of training standards for healthcare professionals to safely and effectively work with AI, and to the challenges of algorithm interpretability, with ”black-box” systems forcing healthcare professionals to blindly trust or distrust their output. More broadly, it will be important to examine the legal liability of healthcare professionals, NHS trusts and industry partners, raising questions

Recommendations

  1. The NHS, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and industry and academic partners should conduct a review to understand the obstacles that the NHS and external organisations face around data sharing. They should also develop health data valuation protocols which consider the perspectives of patients, the NHS, commercial organisations, and academia. This work should inform the development of a data sharing framework.
  2. The National Data Guardian and the Department of Health should monitor the NHS data opt-out programme and its approach to transparency and communication, evaluating how the public understands commercial and non-commercial data use and the handling of data at different levels of anonymisation.
  3. The NHS, patient advocacy groups, and commercial organisations should expand public engagement strategies around data governance, including discussions about the value of health data for improving healthcare; public and private sector interactions in the development of AI-assisted healthcare; and the NHS’s strategies around data anonymisation, accountability, and commercial partnerships. Findings from this work should inform the development of a data sharing framework.
  4. The NHS Digital Security Operations Centre should ensure that all NHS organisations comply with cybersecurity standards, including having up-to-date technology.
  5. NHS Digital, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and the Alan Turing Institute should develop technological approaches to data privacy, auditing, and accountability that could be implemented in the NHS. This should include learning from Global Digital Exemplar trusts in the UK and from international examples such as Estonia.
  6. The NHS should continue to increase the quantity, quality, and diversity of digital health data across trusts. It should consider targeted projects, in partnership with professional medical bodies, that quality-assure and curate datasets for more deployment-ready AI technology. It should also continue to develop its broader IT infrastructure, focusing on interoperability between sectors, institutions, and technologies, and including the end users as central stakeholders.
  7. The Alan Turing Institute, the Ada Lovelace Institute, and academic and industry partners in medicine and AI should develop ethical frameworks and technological approaches for the validation of training data in the healthcare sector, including methods to minimise performance biases and validate continuously-learning algorithms.
  8. The Alan Turing Institute, the Ada Lovelace Institute, and academic and industry partners in medicine and AI should develop standardised approaches for evaluating product performance in the healthcare sector, with consideration for existing human performance standards and products’ intended use.
  9. The Alan Turing Institute, the Ada Lovelace Institute, and academic and industry partners in medicine and AI should develop methods of enabling and evaluating algorithm interpretability in the healthcare sector. This work should involve experts in AI, medicine, ethics, usability design, cognitive science, and ethnography, among others.
  10. Developers of AI products and NHS Commissioners should ensure that usability design remains a top priority in their respective development and procurement of AI-assisted healthcare products.
  11. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency should establish a digital health unit with expertise in AI and digital products that will work together with manufacturers, healthcare bodies, notified bodies, AI-related organisations, and international forums to advance clear regulatory approaches and guidelines around AI product classification, validation, and monitoring. This should address issues including training data and biases, performance evaluation, algorithm interpretability, and usability.
  12. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and industry partners should evaluate regulatory approaches, such as regulatory sandboxing, that can foster innovation in AI-assisted healthcare, ensure patient safety, and inform on-going regulatory development.
  13. The NHS should expand innovation acceleration programmes that bridge healthcare and industry partners, with a focus on increasing validation of AI products in real-world contexts and informing the development of a regulatory framework.
  14. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and other Government bodies should arrange a post-Brexit agreement ensuring that UK regulations of medical devices, including AI-assisted healthcare, are aligned as closely as possible to the European framework and that the UK can continue to help shape Europe-wide regulations around this technology.
  15. The General Medical Council, the Medical Royal Colleges, Health Education England, and AI-related bodies should partner with industry and academia on comprehensive examinations of the healthcare sector to assess which, when, and how jobs will be impacted by AI, including analyses of the current strengths, limitations, and workflows of healthcare professionals and broader NHS staff. They should also examine how AI-driven workforce changes will impact patient outcomes.
  16. The Federation of Informatics Professionals and the Faculty of Clinical Informatics should continue to lead and expand standards for health informatics competencies, integrating the relevant aspects of AI into their training, accreditation, and professional development programmes for clinician-informaticians and related professions.
  17. Health Education England should expand training programmes to advance digital and AI-related skills among healthcare professionals. Competency standards for working with AI should be identified for each role and established in accordance with professional registration bodies such as the General Medical Council. Training programmes should ensure that ”un-automatable” socio-emotional and cognitive skills remain an important focus.
  18. The NHS Digital Academy should expand recruitment and training efforts to increase the number of Chief Clinical Information Officers across the NHS, and ensure that the latest AI ethics, standards, and innovations are embedded in their training programme.
  19. Legal experts, ethicists, AI-related bodies, professional medical bodies, and industry should review the implications of AI-assisted healthcare for legal liability. This includes understanding how healthcare professionals’ duty of care will be affected, the role of workforce training and product validation standards, and the potential role of NHS Indemnity and no-fault compensation systems.
  20. AI-related bodies such as the Ada Lovelace Institute, patient advocacy groups and other healthcare stakeholders should lead a public engagement and dialogue strategy to understand the public’s views on liability for AI-assisted healthcare.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


That is the question…

Anyone who follows healthcare news, as I do , cannot help being impressed with the number of scientific and non-scientific items that mention the applicability of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (‘MRI’) to medical procedures.

A very important aspect that is worthwhile noting is that the promise MRI bears to improve patients’ screening – pre-clinical diagnosis, better treatment choice, treatment guidance and outcome follow-up – is based on new techniques that enables MRI-based tissue characterisation.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an imaging device that relies on the well-known physical phenomena named “Nuclear Magnetic Resonance”. It so happens that, due to its short relaxation time, the 1H isotope (spin ½ nucleus) has a very distinctive response to changes in the surrounding magnetic field. This serves MRI imaging of the human body well as, basically, we are 90% water. The MRI device makes use of strong magnetic fields changing at radio frequency to produce cross-sectional images of organs and internal structures in the body. Because the signal detected by an MRI machine varies depending on the water content and local magnetic properties of a particular area of the body, different tissues or substances can be distinguished from one another in the scan’s resulting image.

The main advantages of MRI in comparison to X-ray-based devices such as CT scanners and mammography systems are that the energy it uses is non-ionizing and it can differentiate soft tissues very well based on differences in their water content.

In the last decade, the basic imaging capabilities of MRI have been augmented for the purpose of cancer patient management, by using magnetically active materials (called contrast agents) and adding functional measurements such as tissue temperature to show internal structures or abnormalities more clearly.

 

In order to increase the specificity and sensitivity of MRI imaging in cancer detection, various imaging strategies have been developed. The most discussed in MRI related literature are:

  • T2 weighted imaging: The measured response of the 1H isotope in a resolution cell of a T2-weighted image is related to the extent of random tumbling and the rotational motion of the water molecules within that resolution cell. The faster the rotation of the water molecule, the higher the measured value of the T2 weighted response in that resolution cell. For example, prostate cancer is characterized by a low T2 response relative to the values typical to normal prostatic tissue [5].

T2 MRI pelvis with Endo Rectal Coil ( DATA of Dr. Lance Mynders, MAYO Clinic)

  • Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE) MRI involves a series of rapid MRI scans in the presence of a contrast agent. In the case of scanning the prostate, the most commonly used material is gadolinium [4].

Axial MRI  Lava DCE with Endo Rectal ( DATA of Dr. Lance Mynders, MAYO Clinic)

  • Diffusion weighted (DW) imaging: Provides an image intensity that is related to the microscopic motion of water molecules [5].

DW image of the left parietal glioblastoma multiforme (WHO grade IV) in a 59-year-old woman, Al-Okaili R N et al. Radiographics 2006;26:S173-S189

  • Multifunctional MRI: MRI image overlaid with combined information from T2-weighted scans, dynamic contrast-enhancement (DCE), and diffusion weighting (DW) [5].

Source AJR: http://www.ajronline.org/content/196/6/W715/F3

  • Blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) MRI: Assessing tissue oxygenation. Tumors are characterized by a higher density of micro blood vessels. The images that are acquired follow changes in the concentration of paramagnetic deoxyhaemoglobin [5].

In the last couple of years, medical opinion leaders are offering to use MRI to solve almost every weakness of the cancer patients’ pathway. Such proposals are not always supported by any evidence of feasibility. For example, a couple of weeks ago, the British Medical Journal published a study [1] concluding that women carrying a mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes who have undergone a mammogram or chest x-ray before the age of 30 are more likely to develop breast cancer than those who carry the gene mutation but who have not been exposed to mammography. What is published over the internet and media to patients and lay medical practitioners is: “The results of this study support the use of non-ionising radiation imaging techniques (such as magnetic resonance imaging) as the main tool for surveillance in young women with BRCA1/2 mutations.”.

Why is ultrasound not mentioned as a potential “non-ionising radiation imaging technique”?

Another illustration is the following advert:

An MRI scan takes between 30 to 45 minutes to perform (not including the time of waiting for the interpretation by the radiologist). It requires the support of around 4 well-trained team members. It costs between $400 and $3500 (depending on the scan).

The important question, therefore, is: Are there, in the USA, enough MRI  systems to meet the demand of 40 million scans a year addressing women with radiographically dense  breasts? Toda there are approximately 10,000 MRI systems in the USA. Only a small percentage (~2%) of the examinations are related to breast cancer. A

A rough calculation reveals that around 10000 additional MRI centers would need to be financed and operated to meet that demand alone.

References

  1. Exposure to diagnostic radiation and risk of breast cancer among carriers of BRCA1/2 mutations: retrospective cohort study (GENE-RAD-RISK), BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5660 (Published 6 September 2012), Cite this as: BMJ 2012;345:e5660 – http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5660
  1. http://www.auntminnieeurope.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=wom&pag=dis&itemId=607075
  1. Ahmed HU, Kirkham A, Arya M, Illing R, Freeman A, Allen C, Emberton M. Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(4):197-206.
  1. Puech P, Potiron E, Lemaitre L, Leroy X, Haber GP, Crouzet S, Kamoi K, Villers A. Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. Urology. 2009;74(5):1094-9.
  1. Advanced MR Imaging Techniques in the Diagnosis of Intraaxial Brain Tumors in Adults, Al-Okaili R N et al. Radiographics 2006;26:S173-S189 ,

http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/26/suppl_1/S173.full

  1. Ahmed HU. The Index Lesion and the Origin of Prostate Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009 Oct; 361(17): 1704-6

Read Full Post »


A Timeline of Dr. Gottlieb’s Tenure at the FDA: 2017-2019

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

 

From FiercePharma.com

FDA chief Scott Gottlieb steps down, leaving pet projects behind

Scott Gottlieb FDA
FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb was appointed by President Trump in 2017. (FDA)

Also under his command, the FDA took quick and decisive action on drug costs. The commissioner worked to boost generic approvals and crack down on regulatory “gaming” that stifles competition. He additionally blamed branded drug companies for an “anemic” U.S. biosimilars market and recently blasted insulin pricing.

His sudden departure will likely leave many agency efforts to lower costs up in the air. After the news broke, many pharma watchers posted on Twitter that Gottlieb’s resignation is a loss for the industry.

During his tenure as FDA commissioner, Gottlieb’s name had been floated for HHS chief when former HHS secretary Tom Price resigned due to a travel scandal, but Gottlieb said he was best suited for the FDA commissioner job. Now, former Eli Lilly executive Alex Azar serves as HHS secretary, and on Tuesday afternoon, Azar praised Gottlieb for his work at the agency.

Also read from FiercePharma:

Gottlieb’s quick goodbye triggers investor panic, biopharma bewilderment and at least one good riddance

AUDIT Podcast

An emergency Scott Gottlieb podcast

 

Why is Scott Gottlieb quitting the FDA? Who will replace him?

 

A Timeline of Dr. Gottlieb’s Tenure at the FDA

From FiercePharma.com

New FDA commissioner Gottlieb unveils price-fighting strategies

Scott Gottlieb
New FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb laid out some approaches the agency will take to fight high prices.

UPDATED 3/19/2019

Dr. Norman E. Sharpless was named acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday. For the last 18 months, he had been director of the National Cancer Institute.CreditTom Williams/CQ Roll Call, via Getty Images
Image
Dr. Norman E. Sharpless was named acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday. For the last 18 months, he had been director of the National Cancer Institute.CreditCreditTom Williams/CQ Roll Call, via Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Dr. Norman E. (Ned) Sharpless, director of the National Cancer Institute, will serve as acting commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Alex M. Azar III, secretary of health and human services, announced on Tuesday.

Dr. Sharpless temporarily will fill the post being vacated by Dr. Scott Gottlieb, who stunned public health experts, lawmakers and consumer groups last week when he abruptly announced that he was resigningfor personal reasons.

Dr. Sharpless has been director of the cancer center, part of the National Institutes of Health, since October 2017. He is also chief of the aging biology and cancer section in the National Institute on Aging’s Laboratory of Genetics and Genomics. His research focuses on the relationship between aging and cancer, and development of new treatments for melanoma, lung cancer and breast cancer.

“Dr. Sharpless’s deep scientific background and expertise will make him a strong leader for F.D.A.,” said Mr. Azar, in a statement. “There will be no let up in the agency’s focus, from ongoing efforts on drug approvals and combating the opioid crisis to modernizing food safety and addressing the rapid rise in youth use of e-cigarettes.”

Dr. Douglas Lowy, known for seminal research on the link between human papillomavirus and multiple cancer types including cervical, and ultimately leading to development of a vaccine, will be named head of the NCI to replace Dr. Sharpless. Dr. Lowy currently is Deputy Director of the NCI.

Other posts on the Food and Drug Administration and FDA Approvals during Dr. Gotlieb’s Tenure on this Open Access Journal Include:

 

Regulatory Affairs: Publications on FDA-related Issues – Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

FDA Approves La Jolla’s Angiotensin 2

In 2018, FDA approved an all-time record of 62 new therapeutic drugs (NTDs) [Not including diagnostic imaging agents, included are combination products with at least one new molecular entity as an active ingredient] with average Peak Sales per NTD $1.2Billion.

Alnylam Announces First-Ever FDA Approval of an RNAi Therapeutic, ONPATTRO™ (patisiran) for the Treatment of the Polyneuropathy of Hereditary Transthyretin-Mediated Amyloidosis in Adults

FDA: Rejects NDA filing: “clinical and non-clinical pharmacology sections of the application were not sufficient to complete a review”: Celgene’s Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Drug – Ozanimod

Expanded Stroke Thrombectomy Guidelines: FDA expands treatment window for use (Up to 24 Hours Post-Stroke) of clot retrieval devices (Stryker’s Trevo Stent) in certain stroke patients

In 2017, FDA approved a record number of 19 personalized medicines — 16 new molecular entities and 3 gene therapies – PMC’s annual analysis, titled Personalized Medicine at FDA: 2017 Progress Report

FDA Approval marks first presentation of bivalirudin in frozen, premixed, ready-to-use formulation

Skin Regeneration Therapy One of First Tissue Engineering Products Evaluated by FDA

FDA approval on 12/1/2017 of Amgen’s evolocumb (Repatha) a PCSK9 inhibitor for the prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and coronary revascularizations in patients with established cardiovascular disease

FDA Approval of Anti-Depression Digital Pill Tracks Use When Swallowed and transmits to MDs Smartphone – A Breakthrough in Medication Remote Compliance Monitoring

Medical Devices Early Feasibility FDA’s Pathway – Accelerated Recruitment for Randomized Clinical Trials: Replacement and Repair of Mitral Valves

Novartis’ Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel), FDA approved genetically engineered immune cells, would charge $475,000 per patient, will use Programs that Payers will pay only for Responding Patients 

FDA has approved the world’s first CAR-T therapy, Novartis for Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) and Gilead’s $12 billion buy of Kite Pharma, no approved drug and Canakinumab for Lung Cancer (may be?)

FDA: CAR-T therapy outweigh its risks tisagenlecleucel, manufactured by Novartis of Basel – 52 out of 63 participants — 82.5% — experienced overall remissions – young patients with Leukaemia [ALL]

‘Landmark FDA approval bolsters personalized medicine’ by Edward Abrahams, PhD, President, PMC

Read Full Post »


In 2018, FDA approved an all-time record of 62 new therapeutic drugs (NTDs) [Not including diagnostic imaging agents, included are combination products with at least one new molecular entity as an active ingredient] with average Peak Sales per NTD $1.2Billion.

 

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

BIOBUSINESS BRIEFS

2018 FDA approvals hit all-time high — but average value slips again

In 2018, the FDA approved an all-time record of 62 new therapeutic drugs (NTDs; see Fig. 1 for the definition and the difference compared with new molecular entities). This is consistent with the increase we predicted last year (Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17, 87; 2018) and the overall resurgence of R&D in the last 5 years, with an average of 51 approvals per year in this period even with a low count in 2016. This is substantially more than the average of 31 approvals per year in the period 2000–2013 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 | FDA approvals of new therapeutic drugs and aggregate projected peak global annual sales: 2000–2018. We analysed 2018 FDA approvals of new therapeutic drugs (NTDs), defined as new molecular entities approved by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), but with two adjustments: first, we excluded diagnostic imaging agents; and second, we included combination products with at least one new molecular entity as an active ingredient. The analysis is based exclusively on approvals by the FDA and the year in which the first indication approval took place. All peak sales values were obtained from EvaluatePharma and were inflation-adjusted to 2018 using standard global GDP-based inflators sourced from the Economist Intelligence Unit. To arrive at peak sales for each NTD, we reviewed both historical actual sales as well as the full range of forecast sales that are available from EvaluatePharma and selected the highest value. Sources: EvaluatePharma, FDA and Boston Consulting Group analysis.

SOURCE

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-019-00004-z

Read Full Post »


Innovators in Therapeutics: John Maraganore, the CEO of Alnylam, and Sara Nochur, Alnylam’s Senior VP Regulatory Affairs, November 15, 2018, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM, HMS

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

 

Innovators in Therapeutics, a Student Speaker Series

by Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science

Free

Actions and Detail Panel

Innovators in Therapeutics, a Student Speaker Series

Thu, November 15, 2018, 4:30 PM – 6:30 PM EST

LOCATION

Cannon Room, Building C, Harvard Medical School

240 Longwood Ave

Boston, MA 02115

View Map

 

Free

 

REGISTER

Event Information

DESCRIPTION

Please join us for the Innovators in Therapeutics student speaker series organized by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science and the Harvard Program in Therapeutic Science. The first installment of this series will feature John Maraganore, the CEO of Alnylam, and Sara Nochur, Alnylam’s Senior Vice President for Regulatory Affairs. Dr. Maraganore and Dr. Nochur will describe Alnylam’s path through development and FDA approval of the first RNAi therapeutic, ONPATTRO™ (patisiran), for the treatment of polyneuropathy of hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis. Dr. Maraganore and Dr. Nochur will focus on the regulatory science aspects of gaining approval for this innovative therapeutic.

Prior to the seminar, please join us for a networking session that brings together faculty, students and trainees who are interested in translational research, pharmacology, biotechnology, and regulatory science. Following the speaking program, there will be a small group discussion for students and trainees to engage directly with the expert about the topic at hand. Participation in the small group discussion is limited to students who register and are confirmed prior to the event.

This event is free and open to the Boston research community. Please help us to plan by RSVPing here!

 

AGENDA

4:30 – 5:00pm: Pre-event reception (outside Cannon Room)

5:00 – 5:45pm: Innovators in Therapeutics with Alnylam’s John Maraganore & Sara Nochur (Cannon Room)

5:45 – 6:15pm: [Limited Space] Student and Trainee Q&A with John Maraganore & Sara Nochur (Folin Wu Room)

SOURCE

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/innovators-in-therapeutics-a-student-speaker-series-tickets-50806305026

Read Full Post »


21st Century Cures Act reforms to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulation of the medical device and pharmaceutical industries – Medical Device Overview: Major FDA Reform Bill Becomes Law

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The 21st Century Cures Act seeks to expedite development of, and provide priority review for, “breakthrough” devices
  • The act requires FDA to provide training on the meaning and implementation of the least burdensome review standard, and requires an audit of the results
  • The act expressly excludes certain categories of medical software from FDA regulation

Major provisions of the act related to medical device regulation found in Subtitle F are listed, below.

 

President Obama recently signed the 996-page 21st Century Cures Act to implement a variety of reforms to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulation of the medical device and pharmaceutical industries.

This alert summarizes the major provisions of the act related to medical device regulation found in Subtitle F.

Read more: http://www.btlaw.com/Food-Drug-and-Device-Law-Alert—Major-FDA-Reform-Bill-Becomes-Law-Medical-Device-Overview-12-13-2016/

 

Section 3051 – Breakthrough Devices

Section 3052 – Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE)

Section 3053 – Recognition of Standards

Section 3054 – Certain Class 1 and Class II Devices

Section 3055 – Classification Panels

Section 3056 – Institutional Review Board Flexibility

Section 3057 – CLIA Waiver Improvements

Section 3058 – Least Burdensome Device Review

Section 3059 – Cleaning Instructions and Validation Data Requirement

Section 3060 – Clarifying Medical Software Regulation

 

A copy of the act can be found here.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20161128/CPRT-114-HPRT-RU00-SAHR34.pdf

 

For more information, please contact the Barnes & Thornburg LLP attorney with whom you work or one of the following attorneys in the firm’s Food, Drug & Device Group: Lynn Tyler at (317) 231-7392 or lynn.tyler@btlaw.com; Beth Davis at (404) 264-4025 or beth.davis@btlaw.com; or Alicia Raines Barr at (317) 231-7398 or alicia.rainesbarr@btlaw.com.

Visit us online at www.btlaw.com/food-drug-and-device-law-practices.

 

SOURCE

http://www.btlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/2016%20Alerts/Food,%20Drug%20and%20Device/FDA%20Alert%20-%2021st%20Century%20Cures%20Act.pdf

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM393978.pdf

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Medical Devices

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/category/medical-devices-rd-investment/

FDA

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/category/fda-regulatory-affairs/

Read Full Post »


Entire Family of Impella Abiomed Impella® Therapy Left Side Heart Pumps: FDA Approved To Enable Heart Recovery

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Abiomed Impella® Therapy Receives FDA Approval for Cardiogenic Shock After Heart Attack or Heart Surgery

Entire Family of Impella Left Side Heart Pumps FDA Approved To Enable Heart Recovery

DANVERS, Mass., April 07, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Abiomed, Inc. (NASDAQ:ABMD), a leading provider of breakthrough heart support technologies, today announced that it has received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Pre-Market Approval (PMA) for its Impella 2.5™, Impella CP®, Impella 5.0™ and Impella LD™ heart pumps to provide treatment of ongoing cardiogenic shock. In this setting, the Impella heart pumps stabilize the patient’s hemodynamics, unload the left ventricle, perfuse the end organs and allow for recovery of the native heart.  This latest approval adds to the prior FDA indication of Impella 2.5 for high risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or Protected PCI™, received in March 2015.

With this approval, these are the first and only percutaneous temporary ventricular support devices that are FDA-approved as safe and effective for the cardiogenic shock indication, as stated below:

The Impella 2.5, Impella CP, Impella 5.0 and Impella LD catheters, in conjunction with the Automated Impella Controller console, are intended for short-term use (<4 days for the Impella 2.5 and Impella CP and <6 days for the Impella 5.0 and Impella LD) and indicated for the treatment of ongoing cardiogenic shock that occurs immediately (<48 hours) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or open heart surgery as a result of isolated left ventricular failure that is not responsive to optimal medical management and conventional treatment measures with or without an intra-aortic balloon pump.  The intent of the Impella system therapy is to reduce ventricular work and to provide the circulatory support necessary to allow heart recovery and early assessment of residual myocardial function.

The product labeling also allows for the clinical decision to leave Impella 2.5, Impella CP, Impella 5.0 and Impella LD in place beyond the intended duration of four to six days due to unforeseen circumstances.

The Impella products offer the unique ability to both stabilize the patient’s hemodynamics before or during a PCI procedure and unload the heart, which allows the muscle to rest and potentially recover its native function. Heart recovery is the ideal option for a patient’s quality of life and as documented in several clinical papers, has the ability to save costs for the healthcare system1,2,3.

Cardiogenic shock is a life-threatening condition in which the heart is suddenly unable to pump enough blood and oxygen to support the body’s vital organs. For this approval, it typically occurs during or after a heart attack or acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or cardiopulmonary bypass surgery as a result of a weakened or damaged heart muscle. Despite advancements in medical technology, critical care guidelines and interventional techniques, AMI cardiogenic shock and post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) carry a high mortality risk and has shown an incremental but consistent increase in occurrence in recent years in the United States.

“This approval sets a new standard for the entire cardiovascular community as clinicians continue to seek education and new approaches to effectively treat severely ill cardiac patients with limited options and high mortality risk,” said William O’Neill, M.D., medical director of the Center for Structural Heart Disease at Henry Ford Hospital. “The Impella heart pumps offer the ability to provide percutaneous hemodynamic stability to high-risk patients in need of rapid and effective treatment by unloading the heart, perfusing the end organs and ultimately, allowing for the opportunity to recover native heart function.”

“Abiomed would like to recognize our customers, physicians, nurses, scientists, regulators and employees for their last fifteen years of circulatory support research and clinical applications. This FDA approval marks a significant milestone in the treatment of heart disease. The new medical field of heart muscle recovery has begun,” said Michael R. Minogue, President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Abiomed. “Today, Abiomed only treats around 5% of this AMI cardiogenic shock patient population, which suffers one of the highest mortality risks of any patient in the heart hospital. Tomorrow, Abiomed will be able to educate and directly partner with our customers and establish appropriate protocols to improve the patient outcomes focused on native heart recovery.”

Abiomed Data Supporting FDA Approval

The data submitted to the FDA in support of the PMA included an analysis of 415 patients from the RECOVER 1 study and the U.S. Impella registry (cVAD Registry™), as well as an Impella literature review including 692 patients treated with Impella from 17 clinical studies. A safety analysis reviewed over 24,000 Impella treated patients using the FDA medical device reporting (“MDR”) database, which draws from seven years of U.S. experience with Impella.

In addition, the Company also provided a benchmark analysis of Impella patients in the real-world Impella cVAD registry vs. these same patient groups in the Abiomed AB5000/BVS 5000 Registry. The Abiomed BVS 5000 product was the first ventricular assist device (VAD) ever approved by the FDA in 1991 based on 83 patient PMA study. In 2003, the AB5000 Ventricle received FDA approval and this also included a PMA study with 60 patients.

For this approval, the data source for this benchmark analysis was a registry (“AB/BVS Registry”) that contained 2,152 patients that received the AB5000 and BVS 5000 devices, which were originally approved for heart recovery. The analysis examined by the FDA used 204 patients that received the AB5000 device for the same indications. This analysis demonstrated significantly better outcomes with Impella in these patients.

The Company believes this is the most comprehensive review ever submitted to the FDA for circulatory support in the cardiogenic shock population.

  1. Maini B, Gregory D, Scotti DJ, Buyantseva L. Percutaneous cardiac assist devices compared with surgical hemodynamic support alternatives: Cost-Effectiveness in the Emergent Setting.Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2014 May 1;83(6):E183-92.
  2. Cheung A, Danter M, Gregory D. TCT-385 Comparative Economic Outcomes in Cardiogenic Shock Patients Managed with the Minimally Invasive Impella or Extracorporeal Life Support. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(17_S):. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.08.413.
  3. Gregory D, Scotti DJ, de Lissovoy G, Palacios I, Dixon, Maini B, O’Neill W. A value-based analysis of hemodynamic support strategies for high-risk heart failure patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013 Mar;6(2):88-99


ABOUT IMPELLA

Impella 2.5 received FDA PMA approval for high risk PCI in March 2015, is supported by clinical guidelines, and is reimbursed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) under ICD-9-CM code 37.68 for multiple indications. The Impella RP® device received Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) approval in January 2015. The Impella product portfolio, which is comprised of Impella 2.5, Impella CP, Impella 5.0, Impella LD, and Impella RP, has supported over 35,000 patients in the United States.

The ABIOMED logo, ABIOMED, Impella, Impella CP, and Impella RP are registered trademarks of Abiomed, Inc. in the U.S.A. and certain foreign countries.  Impella 2.5, Impella 5.0, Impella LD, and Protected PCI are trademarks of Abiomed, Inc.

ABOUT ABIOMED
Based in Danvers, Massachusetts, Abiomed, Inc. is a leading provider of medical devices that provide circulatory support.  Our products are designed to enable the heart to rest by improving blood flow and/or performing the pumping of the heart.  For additional information, please visit: www.abiomed.com

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This release includes forward-looking statements.  These forward-looking statements generally can be identified by the use of words such as “anticipate,” “expect,” “plan,” “could,” “may,” “will,” “believe,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “goal,” “project,” and other words of similar meaning.  These forward-looking statements address various matters including, the Company’s guidance for fiscal 2016 revenue. Each forward-looking statement contained in this press release is subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statement.  Applicable risks and uncertainties include, among others, uncertainties associated with development, testing and related regulatory approvals, including the potential for future losses, complex manufacturing, high quality requirements, dependence on limited sources of supply, competition, technological change, government regulation, litigation matters, future capital needs and uncertainty of additional financing, and the risks identified under the heading “Risk Factors” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2015 and the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015, each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as other information the Company files with the SEC.  We caution investors not to place considerable reliance on the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.  You are encouraged to read our filings with the SEC, available at www.sec.gov, for a discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties.  The forward-looking statements in this press release speak only as of the date of this release and the Company undertakes no obligation to update or revise any of these statements.  Our business is subject to substantial risks and uncertainties, including those referenced above.  Investors, potential investors, and others should give careful consideration to these risks and uncertainties.

For more information, please contact: Aimee Genzler Director, Corporate Communications 978-646-1553 agenzler@abiomed.com Ingrid Goldberg Director, Investor Relations igoldberg@abiomed.com

SOURCE
http://investors.abiomed.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=964113

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »