LinkedInXFacebook
Subscribe
Orthopedics This Week
  • My Feed
  • |Posts
  • |Events
  • |MSK Innovations
  • |Power Rankings
  • |Masterclasses
  • |Technology Awards
  • Press Releases
  • |Advertising
  • |Job Board
  • Spine
  • ◆Joints
  • ◆Upper Extremities
  • ◆Foot & Ankle
  • ◆Sports Medicine
  • ◆Pain Mgmt
  • ◆Trauma
  • ◆Biologics
  • ◆Technology
  • ◆People
  • ◆Company News
  • ◆Legal & Regulatory
Home/Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement/FDA’s Final Guidance Priorities for 2017
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA’s Final Guidance Priorities for 2017

December 29, 2016 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA’s Final Guidance Priorities for 2017
Source: Pixabay
Secondary

On December 23, 2016, the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued a list of 12 final guidance documents and four draft guidances that the agency intends to publish in the next year.

The agency also provided a website where you can comment on the lists. Click here.

During negotiations on the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2012 (MDUFA III), the FDA agreed to post a list of priority medical device guidance documents that the agency intends to publish within 12 months of the date this list is published each fiscal year (the “A-list”) and post a list of device guidance documents that the agency intends to publish, as the agency’s guidance-development resources permit each fiscal year (the “B-list”).

2017 Guidance Document Priorities

According to RAPS, the Regulatory Affairs Professional Society, prioritized medical device guidance documents that the agency intends to publish in FY 2017 (“A-list”) included the following Final Guidance Topics.

  1. Postmarket Management of Cybersecurity in Medical Devices
  2. Medical Device Accessories: Describing Accessories and Classification Pathway for New Accessory Types
  3. Design Considerations and Pre-market Submission Recommendations for Interoperable Medical Devices
  4. Factors to Consider When Making Benefit-Risk Determinations for Medical Device Investigational Device Exemptions
  5. Suggested Format for Developing and Responding to Deficiencies
  6. Benefit-Risk Factors to Consider When Determining Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications [510(k)] with Different Technological Characteristics
  7. Use of Standards in FDA Regulatory Oversight of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) – Based In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Used for Diagnosing Germline Diseases
  8. Use of Public Human Genetic Variant Databases to Support Clinical Validity for Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) – Based In Vitro Diagnostics
  9. Infectious Disease Next Generation Sequencing Based Diagnostic Devices: Microbial Identification and Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Markers
  10. Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices
  11. 510(k) Third Party Review Program
  12. New or revised procedural guidances for MDUFA IV implementation

Click here to review the entire list.

Make Your Comments

The agency wants to hear your comments on the priority of topics for guidance, provide comments and/or propose draft language for those topics, suggest topics for new or different guidance documents, comment on the applicability of guidance documents that have issued previously, and provide any other comments that could benefit the CDRH guidance program and its engagement with stakeholders.

All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1021 for “Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act”. Submit either electronic or written comments by February 21, 2017 to the link provided at the beginning of this article.

React:

Discussion

14
DS
Dr. Sarah MitchellOrthopedic Surgeon · Mayo Clinic

This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?

8
JT
James Thornton, MDSpine Fellow · HSS

Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.

5
RP
R. PatelSports Medicine · Stanford

We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.

Join the conversation

Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.

Subscribe

Get Full Access

Read every OTW article and join member discussions for $24.99/month.

Get Full Access

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Orthopedics This Week

The most trusted source in orthopedic industry news since 2005. Covering spine, joints, trauma, biologics, and the business of orthopedics.

A publication of RRY Publications, LLC

LinkedInXFacebook

Categories

  • Spine
  • Joints
  • Upper Extremities
  • Foot & Ankle
  • Sports Medicine
  • Pain Mgmt
  • Trauma
  • Biologics
  • Technology
  • People
  • Company News
  • Legal & Regulatory

Resources

  • Subscribe
  • Community Posts
  • Job Board
  • Press Release Opportunities
  • Power Rankings
  • About OTW
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

Get Full Access

Unlimited articles, community posts, and Power Rankings.

Get Full Access

Plans start at $24.99/mo · Annual saves 20%

© 2026 Orthopedics This Week · RRY Publications, LLC

Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie Policy