Life Sciences

We have been writing about software as a medical device (SaMD) for years, tracking the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) efforts to keep up with the fast-paced development of digital technology, such as launching the Digital Health Center of Excellence, implementing predetermined change control plans, and issuing various digital health guidances on device software functions, clinical decision support software, cybersecurity, and other topics. In anticipation of FDA’s Artificial Intelligence /Machine Learning (AI/ML) Medical Devices Workshop in October 2021, we posted a brief history of the agency’s regulatory oversight of software through the traditional medical device regulatory framework established in the 1970s, in which we highlighted the numerous challenges associated with such an approach. But now, with the rise of artificial intelligence and machine learning and the proliferation of AI/ML-enabled software throughout the health care industry, FDA is facing enormous challenges using an outdated, procrustean regulatory framework to maintain standards of safety and quality for such software devices. It is becoming increasingly clear that innovation in the AI/ML and digital health technology space is advancing rapidly, as FDA Commissioner Rob Califf has emphasized in many recent public appearances, and that the traditional device framework is quickly becoming unworkable for such technologies.

J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference (JPM) is one of the industry’s most important life science investment conferences of the year. Learn more about Cheryl Reicin's top five takeaways from the event.

A new battle is emerging in the fight for health equity, and it’s centered on the humble pulse oximeter. On November 1, 2023, 25 state attorneys general sent a letter to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) demanding that the agency take urgent action to address pulse oximeter inaccuracies that continue to create health care risks for people of color. The letter comes exactly one year after a public meeting held by the Anesthesiology and Respiratory Therapy Devices Panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee titled “Pulse Oximeter Accuracy and Limitations,” and nearly 21 months after the agency issued a safety communication about pulse oximeter inaccuracies when used on people with dark skin pigmentation (see our previous blog post on pulse oximeter performance here).

The capabilities and sophistication of digital health technologies are constantly expanding, especially with the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning. Many companies, both existing and start-up, are developing software aimed at health care systems, hospitals, physicians, and lay-users for various levels of use, from assisting diagnoses in a clinical environment to tracking exercise and general health indicators in the home. In particular, a growing number of companies is focusing on the development of digital therapeutics - a class of software devices that deliver and monitor medical interventions for the purpose of treating, managing, or preventing certain diseases or conditions - for use in a patient’s home. With all of the new players jumping into the digital health technology game, we thought it might be useful to provide a brief primer on certain factors to consider when evaluating the potential regulatory requirements for such products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new pilot program on June 21, 2023 that gives sponsors of oncology products the opportunity to submit validation and performance data for laboratory developed tests (LDTs) intended to support patient selection for such drugs. Although the pilot is limited to only nine participants, it is unclear based on the requirements of the program whether it will generate sufficient interest among oncology product sponsors to meet the objectives that the agency has established for it.

Mintz welcomed investors and entrepreneurs from the Canadian and US life sciences ecosystem to our first annual matchmaking event in Toronto. In this video, hear about cross-border considerations for the sector and how Mintz’s life sciences focus positions us to guide emerging growth companies and investors doing business in both countries.

The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the section of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responsible for the regulation of medical devices, has issued a request for public comments on expanding patient access to medical technologies intended for use by patients in their homes.

The information age in which we live is reaching a new milestone with the development and ready access to conversational artificial intelligence based on advanced transformer algorithms, or AI chatbots, including their upcoming integration into multiple Internet search engines. This development creates exciting opportunities and potentially terrifying risks in the health care space. Inevitably, people will ask AI chatbot-enabled search engines for information on diseases, conditions, medicines, or medical devices and use the response in some way to make certain medical decisions. But what happens when the AI chatbot’s response is inaccurate or even provides advice that may lead to harm if the user follows it? Can AI chatbots be regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? What are the liability implications if a user is harmed? We provide some initial thoughts on such legal issues in this post.

There has been a lot of discussion of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), which was enacted on December 29, 2022 as part of the larger Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023, but we should also take a moment to review last year’s actions and policy updates on digital health from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The year 2022 marked the conclusion of the five-year Software Precertification Pilot Program and the release of the final Clinical Decision Support Software guidance, among other things (both described below); however, major digital health policy updates and announcements were few and far between. In this post, we summarize the agency’s key actions in the digital health space in 2022.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a guidance on development and emergency use authorization of diagnostic and serological tests for the monkeypox virus following the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Service’s declaration of a public health emergency under Section 564 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act on August 9, 2022. Subsequently, the Secretary declared on September 7 that in vitro diagnostics for monkeypox were needed to respond to the public health emergency, and the FDA released its guidance on the same day. The monkeypox test guidance describes the agency’s general expectations and approach for test development and validation, as well as the EUA request process.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will schedule a public meeting of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee later this year to discuss study results, real-world data, and other evidence concerning the accuracy and performance of pulse oximeters. The planned meeting is consistent with the agency’s recent efforts to evaluate the need for and options to address transparency and diversity in the design and development of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) based software devices (see our post covering FDA’s Transparency of AI/ML Enabled Medical Devices Workshop) and in clinical trial design. It is unclear whether or how the outcome of the planned meeting on pulse oximeters will affect prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) pulse oximeters currently on the market, but it is possible that the meeting could lead FDA to impose new testing or labeling requirements for pulse oximeters, and perhaps even other devices that use light-based sensors to evaluate certain biometrics.

Anyone who has spent any time around health care policymaking circles in Washington, D.C. has heard about the intense five-year cycle Congress goes through in order to reauthorize the biggest user fee programs at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Mintz previously published this wonderful explanation of the process complete with an estimated timeline for how this year’s reauthorization was likely to go. As a reminder, the current authorization for FDA’s various human product user fee programs – with the exception of the over-the-counter drug program that was freshly created in 2020 – will expire on September 30, 2022 with the end of the federal government’s fiscal year, unless they are renewed by Congress before that time.

As the COVID-19 public health emergency drags into its third year, we continue to keep track of efforts by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to combat fraud in the form of fake cures, counterfeit diagnostic tests, and other products claiming to prevent, treat, or detect infection by SARS-CoV-2 that are marketed without required FDA authorization. Our previous posts provided updates on joint and separate efforts by FDA and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) throughout the pandemic to detect and eliminate these illegal products. In this post, we focus on FDA’s recent enforcement activities concerning COVID-19 diagnostic tests and the agency’s increasingly aggressive pursuit of entities offering counterfeit or unauthorized tests.

Public and private life science companies have multiple options available for capital-raising. Here are a few to be considered.

In 2021, approximately on quarter of all federal securities fraud class action lawsuits filed nationwide were against life sciences companies and their officers and directors. These considerations are for directors and officers of life sciences companies looking to manage disclosures and mitigate risk before a suit ever gets filed.

We previously discussed which portions of an artificial intelligence/machine-learning (“AI/ML”) platform can be patented.  Under what circumstances, however, is it best to keep at least a portion of the platform a trade secret? And what are some best practices for protecting trade secrets? In this post, we explore important considerations and essential business practices to keep in mind when working to protect the value of trade secrets specific to AI/ML platforms, as well as the pros and cons of trade secret versus patent protection.