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 New HA Guidance Clear as Mud
Legal & Regulatory and Reimbursement

FDA New HA Guidance Clear as Mud

December 24, 2018 2 min read Premium comments

Advertisement

FDA New HA Guidance Clear as Mud
Source: Wikimedia Commons and Bernard Hanakam
#hyaluronicacidSecondary#foodanddrugadministration#requestfordesignation

In mid-December, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a murky and confusing notice saying that companies intending to submit a new premarket approval application (PMA) or supplement to a PMA for a new or changed use of injectable hyaluronic acid (HA) “are encouraged to obtain an informal or formal classification and jurisdiction determination through a Pre-Request for Designation (Pre-RFD) or Request for Designation (RFD)” before submitting.

Historically, HA has been regulated as a device. However, this notice seems to imply (but does not actually say) that if the sponsor of the HA application doesn’t submit an RFD or Pre-RFD, then, for the purposes of new applications or amendments, FDA will consider the new HA use to be as a drug, not a device.

The notice of “Intent to Consider the Appropriate Classification of Hyaluronic Acid Intra-Articular Products Intended for the Treatment of Pain in Osteoarthritis of the Knee Based on Scientific Evidence,” was published in the December 18 Federal Register.

The implication that HA might be regulated as a drug in the future (absent a case-by-case designation as a device in response to an RFD or Pre-RFD) arises from the body of the FDA announcement, which says (summarized) that originally, HA was classified as a device because it has a cushioning effect, which doesn’t last, but that now (in FDA’s view), the principal way it acts on the joint is by creating chemical reactions in the joint. Impliedly, that would seem to make it a drug.

Here’s another strange detail: In response to our attempt to get clarification, an FDA spokesperson said the agency isn’t answering any questions beyond the text of the notice “until we evaluated comments submitted.” However, the notice doesn’t make any mention of a comment period or how to submit a comment.

Her email adds, “You may want to consider reaching out to experts outside of FDA to see if they wish to comment.”

We did.

Enter Outside Expert

Advertisement

We found that we’re not alone in wondering what FDA intends.

Attorneys Jeffrey K. Shapiro & Jeffrey N. Gibbs of the Washington law firm Hyman Phelps & McNamara PC, wrote in a December 19 posting in the firm’s FDA Law Blog, “This document is quite unusual, to say the least. Without fanfare, FDA has suddenly announced that products regulated as Class III devices for 23 years ‘may’ actually be drugs.”

The blog opines:

“As a procedural matter, this approach does not seem sensible. If FDA believes that new science requires the agency to re classify HA injectables for the knee as drugs, then it would make more sense to announce the concern, conduct a public proceeding to gather all the appropriate information and views, and make a class wide decision, with clear guidance on the transition and implementation of the decision….”

“Instead, FDA has expressed doubt about the classification of all these products but only ‘encourages’ PMA holders to seek classification decisions via the Pre RFD or RFD processes…. Nothing in the notice suggests that the science FDA is citing would apply to some HA products but not others. If so, why bother with case by case decision making at all? Why not take a class wide approach, and solicit comments?”

Injectable HA is a controversial treatment. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) pulled its recommendation to use HA in its clinical practice guidelines in 2017 after many years (“AAOS Issues New OA Clinical Practice Guidelines,” Elizabeth Hofheinz, M.P.H., M.Ed.  May 1, 2017).

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