510(k) Data Debated In Comments On FDA Draft Guidance
This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet
Executive Summary
Device companies say non-clinical data should be given more prominence in FDA guidance on benefit-risk factors to consider when determining substantial equivalence of 510(k) devices with different technological characteristics from a predicate. But a coalition of consumer groups argues that the draft guidance underplays the need for clinical data.
You may also be interested in...
Paradigm Persists: FDA Finalizes 510(k) Guidance Without Special 510(k) Changes
FDA has finalized an important guidance on 510(k) substantial equivalence, but decided to hold off on including sections that would overwrite the popular 1998 “The New 510(k) Paradigm” guidance that describe the abridged special and abbreviated 510(k) routes. Industry strongly objected to FDA’s proposed changes to the special 510(k) program in the 2011 draft 510(k) guidance.
New EU Approvals
The Pink Sheet's list of EU centralized approvals of new active substances has been updated to add two new products, including Ryzneuta, Evive Biotechnology's treatment for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia.
Over The Counter 2 Apr 2024: Analyzing The Spin-Out Trend In Consumer Health, With HBW’s Malcolm Spicer And Tom Gallen
In this episode, HBW Insight’s Europe and US editors bring their expertise to bear on the current the trend towards standalone OTC companies in global consumer health. We look at four major players: Haleon, which separated from GSK almost two years ago; Kenvue, soon to celebrate its first anniversary as a new company; Sanofi Consumer Healthcare, which is poised to split from its pharma parent; and Bayer, which has decided to buck the trend, holding on to its consumer health division. We discuss some of the advantages of becoming a standalone company, for example in leaning into a wider concept of self-care.