Modern technology has given rise to new legal questions. How does FDA regulate machine-learning computers that are changing so rapidly – given that the approved product may be drastically different than the product that ends up on the market? These questions arise from a lack of understanding of the complex nature of AI/ML-based SaMD, the opaqueness of the regulatory framework, and a dearth of relevant case law.
The goal of the voluntary program is to streamline the submission process. The agency also announced that it has selected participants for its EtO Innovation Challenges.
The agency is aiming to provide more transparency and consistency in this area.
Bringing a product to market in the United States can be complicated, but it can be streamlined with a clear grasp of the process.
FDA issues two new draft guidances that explain when device or software changes require a 510(k) submission.
The agency says there’s not enough evidence to demonstrate that there’s reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
The acting commissioner reflects on the agency’s achievements in the last year.
If you climb into FDA’s sandbox, be prepared to play by the rules.
Regardless, let’s look at stupidity in its highest form.
Device establishments should be able to read and comprehend 21 CFR Part 807.