Medical Device Industry Responds to FDA's Overseas Clinical Trial Proposed Rule

Guest Post By Jennifer M. Forde, Nathan A. Beaver and David L. Rosen

In a resounding manner, members of the medical device industry recently filed comments reacting to the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed rule to strengthen its oversight of overseas clinical studies of medical devices. The proposed rule would replace the current practice, which does not require review by an independent ethics committee. Currently, FDA accepts data from clinical trials conducted outside the U.S. if the data are valid and the studies are conducted in conformance with the 1983 Declaration of Helsinki or the laws and regulations of the country in which the research is conducted, whichever accords greater protection to human subjects.

The proposed rule, however, would impose new reporting requirements when data from clinical studies for medical devices conducted outside the U.S.are submitted as support for an device exception, a 510(k) premarket notification submission, a premarket approval application, a product development protocol application, or a humanitarian device exemption application. In such cases, applicants would have to demonstrate to FDA that the study was conducted in accordance with “good clinical practice.” Under the proposed rule, proof of good clinical practice includes obtaining “the review and approval of the study by an independent ethics committee,” as well as a record of the informed consent of study participants. FDA would further require applicants to provide records detailing the qualifications of ethics committee members, their approval process, information about the research facility, and descriptions of how researchers obtained informed consent and monitored their subjects.

Comments submitted to FDA by the medical device industry have resoundingly critiqued the new rule as imposing stricter regulations than those required for domestic clinical trials, while ignoring barriers presented by other countries’ laws. Some propose that before implementing the proposed rule, FDA should first create consistency between international and U.S.definitions and guidelines, as currently not all foreign countries permit disclosure of the information required for compliance with the proposed rule. Others point out that studies are oftentimes conducted overseas without plans to apply for approval from the U.S., and the data from such studies should not be summarily excluded. As to potential alternative solutions, it was proposed by at least one commenter that the FDA should instead adopt the standard ISO-14155:2011, which is already recognized by all members of the International Medical Device Regulators Forum. After the overwhelming response by industry, many are anticipating that FDA may initiate additional changes to the regulations before a final rule is implemented.

Stay tuned as we continue to follow this important legal and regulatory issue.

David L. Rosen, Nathan A. Beaver and Jennifer M. Forde are legal experts advising clients on regulatory issues and are resident in Foley & Lardner’s Washington, DC office.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.