An industry update: the latest developments in therapeutic delivery covering May 2020.

The present industry update covers the period 1-31 May 2020, with information sourced from company press releases, regulatory and patent agencies as well as scientific literature.

Singular secular Kuznets-like period realized amid industrial transformation in US FDA medical devices: a perspective on growth from 1976 to 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Since inception, the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has kept a robust record of regulated medical devices (MDs). Based on these data, can we gain insight into the innovation dynamics of the industry, including the potential for industrial transformation?. AREAS COVERED: Using premarket notifications (PMNs) and approvals (PMAs) data, it is shown that from 1976 to 2020 the total composite (PMN+PMA) metric follows a single secular period: 20.5 years (applications - peak-to-peak: 1992-2012; trough: 2002) and 26.5 years (registrations - peak-to-peak: 1992-2019; trough: 2003), with a peak-to-trough relative percentage difference of 24% and 28%, respectively. Importantly, PMNs and PMAs independently present as an inverse structure. EXPERT OPINION: The evidence suggests that MD innovation is driven by a singular secular Kuznets-like cyclic phenomenon (independent of economic crises) derived from a fundamental shift from simple (PMNs) to complex (PMAs) MDs. Portentously, while the COVID-19 crisis may not affect the overriding dynamic, the anticipated yet significant (~25%) MD innovation drop may be potentially attenuated with attentive measures by MD stakeholders. Limitations of this approach and further thoughts complete this perspective.

Easing Medical Device Regulatory Oversight: The FDA and Testing Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The FDA already subjects most medical devices to much less stringent approval requirements than drugs and biologics, and attempts to speed up rollout during the COVID crisis have been problematic. Agency decisions, including to allow antibody test marketing without emergency use authorization or review, and the back-and-forth guidance on laboratory-developed tests, have met harsh criticism and unreliable results. Though the long-term results of these decisions are unclear, the FDA's credibility, reliability, and commitment to safety are threatened by even further lessening medical device regulatory oversight during the coronavirus pandemic. The relaxed and fix-it-later approach to many of the FDA's public health emergency decisions regarding medical devices reflect the ongoing criticisms of medical device regulation in general, specifically the 510(k) process and laboratory developed test regulation, offering a point of reflection towards reform. Adaptive legislation and a risk-based and evidentiary approach to premarket and postmarket review can begin to address these issues both generally and in an emergency context.

[The Policy and Practice of Medical Device Emergency Approval at the Local Level under the Circumstance of COVID-19 Disease].

This research analyzed Chinese emergency approval policies and practices of medical devices at the local level under the circumstance of COVID-19 disease. The legal basis and administrative system were clarified, the implementation and characteristics of emergency approval policies were investigated, the products information including total approved number, product type and license's validity period were counted. Advices as enhancing the standardization of emergency approval system, strengthening registration guidance and optimize information disclose and management were provided.

Solving Unmet Needs With Innovative Pediatric Medical Devices.

In the last decade, only 24% of class III life-saving devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were for pediatric use-and most of those were for children over 12. Of these, less than 4% were labeled for pediatric patients ages 0-2 years old and the number of approved devices is even lower for neonatal patients. For these young patients, adult medical devices are often manipulated by pediatric specialists in order to provide stop-gap solutions. However, these repurposed devices are not always able to fulfill the unique needs of children's biology and growth patterns.

Smartphone Biosensor With App Meets FDA/ISO Standards for Clinical Pulse Oximetry and Can Be Reliably Used by a Wide Range of Patients.

BACKGROUND: Millions of smartphones contain a photoplethysmography (PPG) biosensor (Maxim Integrated) that accurately measures pulse oximetry. No clinical use of these embedded sensors is currently being made, despite the relevance of remote clinical pulse oximetry to the management of chronic cardiopulmonary disease, and the triage, initial management, and remote monitoring of people affected by respiratory viral pandemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or influenza. To be used for clinical pulse oximetry the embedded PPG system must be paired with an application (app) and meet US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and International Organization for Standardization (ISO) requirements. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does this smartphone sensor with app meet FDA/ISO requirements? Are measurements obtained using this system comparable to those of hospital reference devices, across a wide range of people? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed laboratory testing addressing ISO and FDA requirements in 10 participants using the smartphone sensor with app. Subsequently, we performed an open-label clinical study on 320 participants with widely varying characteristics, to compare the accuracy and precision of readings obtained by patients with those of hospital reference devices, using rigorous statistical methodology. RESULTS: "Breathe down" testing in the laboratory showed that the total root-mean-square deviation of oxygen saturation (Spo2) measurement was 2.2%, meeting FDA/ISO standards. Clinical comparison of the smartphone sensor with app vs hospital reference devices determined that Spo2 and heart rate accuracy were 0.48% points (95% CI, 0.38-0.58; P < .001) and 0.73 bpm (95% CI, 0.33-1.14; P < .001), respectively; Spo2 and heart rate precision were 1.25 vs reference 0.95% points (P < .001) and 5.99 vs reference 3.80 bpm (P < .001), respectively. These small differences were similar to the variation found between two FDA-approved reference instruments for Spo2: accuracy, 0.52% points (95% CI, 0.41-0.64; P < .001) and precision, 1.01 vs 0.86% points (P < .001). INTERPRETATION: Our findings support the application for full FDA/ISO approval of the smartphone sensor with app tested for use in clinical pulse oximetry. Given the immense and immediate practical medical importance of remote intermittent clinical pulse oximetry to both chronic disease management and the global ability to respond to respiratory viral pandemics, the smartphone sensor with app should be prioritized and fast-tracked for FDA/ISO approval to allow clinical use. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04233827; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

China NMPA perspective on clinical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antibody test reagents in the process of emergency approval.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing an important supplement to nucleic acid testing. In the process of emergency approval, the Center for Medical Device Evaluation of the China National Medical Products Administration released The Key Points of Technical Review for the Registration of SARS-CoV-2 Antigen/Antibody Detection Reagents. The Clinical Study Requirement section of the Key Point has put forward requirements in terms of reference methods and subject enrolment among others, which can ensure that the test results can meet the clinical needs. This article draws on the experience of the China NMPA in evaluating diagnostic reagents used to supplement the gold standard test method in the early stage of an epidemic of an infectious disease, as well as to serve as reference for clinicians and regulators.

Regulatory Agilities in the Time of COVID-19: Overview, Trends, and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: Crucial steps have been adopted by health and regulatory authorities around the world to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. This review aims to highlight these steps by providing an overview of the regulatory approaches adopted during the onset of the pandemic, provide an assessment of observed trends, and offer some reflections and proposals to leverage learnings and opportunities from this current pandemic. METHODS: Documents and informational materials on regulating the development and management of medical products during the COVID-19 pandemic were collected and classified. These materials were sourced from official websites and press releases from health authorities and international bodies from selected markets across the globe, and covered the period between January and July 2020. Additional information to support this study was gathered through a literature review and analysis of related data available from the public domain, and was complemented with the authors' personal experience. FINDINGS: Communication has been vital in addressing the impact of COVID-19. A total of 1705 documents and informational materials related to health or regulatory response to the COVID-19 pandemic were gathered. Of these, 343 (around 20%) were identified as regulatory agilities. These agile approaches were classified into 3 categories, namely, where health and regulatory authorities had: (1) facilitated product management across the entire lifecycle, notably in expediting medical product use for COVID-19, ensuring the continuity of clinical trials, and addressing supply chain issues; (2) strengthened international cooperation; and (3) addressed regulatory burden with the adoption of electronic and digital tools. IMPLICATIONS: While many regulatory measures have been introduced temporarily as a response to the COVID-19 crisis, there are opportunities for leveraging an understanding from these approaches in order to collectively achieve more efficient regulatory systems and to mitigate and address the impact of COVID-19 and further future-proof the regulatory environment.

Comparison of test performance of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays in serum and plasma samples.

BACKGROUND: For epidemiologic, social and economic reasons, assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection prevalence and immunity are important to adapt decisions to current demands. Hence, immunoassays for detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are introduced rapidly without requiring FDA emergency use authorization approval. Thus, evaluation of test performance predominantly relies on laboratories. This study aimed to evaluate the test performance of recently launched commercial immunoassays in serum and plasma samples. METHODS: 51 serum samples from 26 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection after end of quarantine and 25 control patients were analyzed using anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope to assess diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. 20 matching pairs of serum and plasma samples were included to analyze comparability between different specimens. RESULTS: Overall, a diagnostic sensitivity of 92.3%, 96.2-100% and 100% with a respective diagnostic specificity of 100%, 100% and 84-86% for the immunoassays from Roche, Euroimmun and Epitope were determined. In total, 84-96% of samples were correctly classified as negative and 92.3-95.2% as positive. The level of concordance between plasma- and serum-based testing diverged between the assays (Epitope r2 = 0.97; Euroimmun r2 = 0.91; Roche r2 = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The immunoassays from Euroimmun and Roche revealed a higher specificity than the Epitope assay without a substantial drop of diagnostic sensitivity. Significant differences between plasma- and serum-based testing highlights the need for determination of appropriate cut-offs per specimen type. Hence, there is an urgent need for test harmonization and establishment of quality standards for an appropriate use of COVID-19 serological tests.

COVID-19 and respiratory support devices.

There are significant logistical challenges to providing respiratory support devices, beyond simple oxygen flow, when centres run out of supplies or do not have these devices at all, such as in low resource settings. At the peak of the COVID-19 crisis, it was extremely difficult to import medical equipment and supplies, because most countries prohibited the medical industry from selling outside of their own countries. As a consequence, engineering teams worldwide volunteered to develop emergency devices, and medical experts in mechanical ventilation helped to guide the design and evaluation of prototypes. Although regulations vary among countries, given the emergency situation, some Regulatory Agencies facilitated expedited procedures. However, laboratory and animal model testing are crucial to minimize the potential risk for patients when treated with a device that may worsen clinical outcome if poorly designed or misused.

Proposal for a EN 149 acceptable reprocessing method for FFP2 respirators in times of severe shortage.

INTRODUCTION: Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 to health care workers (HCW) poses a major burden in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Unprotected exposure to a COVID-19 patient is a key risk factor for HCWs. Transmission mainly occurs by droplet transmission, or by aerosol generating procedures. Respirators such as filtering face piece masks (FFP2), also called respirators, are required to prevent transmission during aerosol generating procedures, as part of the personal protective equipment (PPE) for HCWs. However, many HCW were infected due to lack of PPE, or failure to use them. Therefore, the worldwide shortage of respirators triggered the development of reprocessing used FFP2 respirators or N95 respirators as standard in the US. Our proposal with H2O2 plasma sterilization for decontamination allows to reprocess FFP2, while they still meet the filtration efficiency required by EN 149. The protocol is simple, uses available resources in hospitals and can be rapidly implemented to decrease the shortage of respirators during this crisis. The goal of the study was the evaluate if respirators can be reprocessed and still fulfill the requirements for filtration efficiency outlined by EN 149. METHODS: Used FFP2 respirators - Model 3 M Aura™ 1862+ - were sterilized using a low temperature process hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), V-PRO® maX Low Temperature, a FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved method to decontaminate FFP2 respirators. Decontaminated respirators were further checked for residual peroxide by a single-gas detector for H2O2. The total inward leakage of the protective respirators was quantitatively tested with 10 test persons in an atmosphere charged with paraffin aerosol according to the European Standard EN 149. The fit factor was calculated as the inverse of the total inward leakage. RESULTS: Ten new and ten decontaminated FFP2 respirators were tested for filtration efficiency. None of the respirators exceeded the maximum acceptable concentration of peroxide. More than 4000 respirators have been reprocessed so far, at cost of approximately 0.3 Euro/piece. CONCLUSIONS: FFP2 respirators can be safely reprocessed once after decontamination with plasma peroxide sterilization, whereafter they still fulfill EN 149 requirements. This allows to almost double the current number of available FFP2 respirators.