Sector News

What patients want: FDA lists top preference-sensitive areas in medtech

May 3, 2019
Life sciences

The FDA is polling the industry and the public for ideas on where the agency should focus when it comes to addressing patient preferences for medical devices, to help build out its new list of priorities that could impact the structure of premarket clinical studies, risk-benefit assessments and postmarket reviews.

Awareness of patient preferences can also be applied in the design of the device itself, of course, and the FDA hopes to identify the key areas where deeper knowledge would have the largest impacts—such as in how patients may value the benefits and risks of a certain technology or treatment differently from healthcare professionals and caregivers.

“Patients are the experts in living with their disease or condition, the outcomes that are most important to them, and how they weigh benefits and risks,” Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in an agency statement.

“Through better collection and understanding of information that matters to patients, we can ensure our evaluation throughout the lifecycle of a medical device includes a better reflection of the patient experience,” Shuren added. There may also be areas were population-level differences in perspective could be better understood.

To start, the agency has published an initial list of priority areas culled from previous public input the FDA has received through workshops and other avenues. It includes descriptions of patient values in diagnosis and treatment, as well as relevant clinical endpoints for specific populations.

It also lists preference-sensitive areas organized by medical specialty—for example, the tradeoffs between risks and benefits when operating diagnostics at the point-of-care compared to other venues or whether incremental increases in cancer survival always outweigh the risks of device-related toxicity.

The FDA has also opened a docket for public comments on whether any changes should be made to the list, and is seeking information on existing studies in the field to help it address the issue.

“By asking patients, industry members and researchers to provide comments and feedback on this list, we’re working to ensure that the valuable insights from patients continue to inform the agency’s decisions and understanding,” Shuren said.

By Conor Hale

Source: Fierce Biotech

comments closed

Related News

September 25, 2022

Rise of the machines: Novo Nordisk pledges $200M to create first quantum computer for life sciences

Life sciences

Big Pharma has long seen the potential for AI and machine learning to accelerate drug development. But Novo Nordisk is going a step further by channeling $200 million toward the creation of a computer that will outrun anything in existence.

September 25, 2022

Mount Sinai AI uncovers new brain analysis method to predict dementia, Alzheimer’s disease

Life sciences

Current methods for diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease rely on a complex combination of self- and caregiver-reported symptoms, a physical examination and either a PET scan or a spinal tap to look for evidence of amyloid plaque build-ups in the brain. But a new artificial intelligence-based method may make the diagnostic process a much more objective one.

September 25, 2022

New AstraZeneca-backed report finds big money behind diverse owners and entrepreneurs in Europe

Life sciences

There is lots of talk about diversity and inclusion in business, including in pharma and medtech. A new report by the Open Political Economy Network (OPEN), a think tank focusing on migration and diversity, released its “Minority Businesses Matter: Europe” report highlighting the successes and challenges of ethnic minority-owned businesses in Europe.