Medical Devices

Xenotransplantation: Ethics and Public Policy Need To Catch up to the Science

March 5, 2022
Bioethics, Biotechnology, Discrimination, Ethics, FDA, Health, Medical Devices, New Technology, Personalized Medicine

Claire Colby, MJLST Staffer

In early January, surgeons at the University of Maryland Medical Center made history by successfully transplanting a genetically altered pig heart to a human recipient, David Bennett. The achievement represents a major milestone in transplantation. The demand for transplantable organs far outpaces the supply, and xenotransplantation–the implantation of non-human tissue into human recipients–could help bridge this gap. In the U.S. alone, more than 106,000 people are on the waiting list for transplants. Legal and ethical questions remain open about the appropriateness of implementing xenotransplants on a large scale.

The FDA approved the January transplant through an emergency authorization compassionate use pathway because Bennett likely would have died without this intervention. Larger clinical trials will be needed to generate enough data to show that xenotransplants are safe and effective. The FDA will require these trials to show xenotransplantations are non-inferior to human organ transplants. IRB requirements bar interventions where risk outweighs benefits for patients, but accurately predicting and measuring risk is difficult.

If xenotransplantation becomes standard clinical practice, animal rights proponents may balk at the idea of raising pigs for organs. Far before that point, pre-clinical trials will make heavy use of animal models. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) which oversee animal research in universities and medical entities apply a “much lower ethical standard” for animals than human research subjects. Bioethicists apply a “3R” framework for animal subjects research that stresses replacing animal models, reducing animal testing, and refining their use. Because of the inherent nature of xenotransplantation, applying this framework may be near impossible. Ongoing discussions are needed with relevant stakeholders.

If both human and animal organs are approved for widespread transplant, but human organs prove superior, new allocation policies are needed to determine who gets what. Organ allocation policy is currently dictated by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). As it stands, organ transplantation shows inequality across racial groups and financial status. New allocation policies for organs must not reinforce or worsen these disparities.

Like all medical interventions, patients must be able to provide informed consent for xenotransplantation. The recipient of the altered pig heart had previously been deemed ineligible for a human heart transplant because his heart failure was poorly managed. Reserving experimental interventions, like xenotransplantations, for the sickest patients raises serious ethical concerns. Are these desperate patients truly able to give meaningful consent? If xenotransplantation becomes a common practice, the traditional model of institutional review boards may need updating. Currently, individual institutions maintain their own IRBs. Xenotransplantation of altered animal organs may involve several sites: procurement of the organ, genetic editing, and transplantation may all take place in different locations. A central IRB for xenotransplantation could standardize and streamline this process.

In all, xenotransplantation represents an exciting new frontier in transplant medicine. Responsibly implementing this innovation will require foresight and parallel innovation in ethics and public policy.

You Wouldn’t 3D Print Tylenol, Would You?

October 12, 2021
3-D Printing, Administrative Law, Bioethics, Biotechnology, FDA, Food and Drug Law, Health, Healthcare, Healthcare Reform, Medical Devices, Personalized Medicine, Pharmaceuticals, Uncategorized

By Mason Medeiros, MJLST Staffer

3D printing has the potential to change the medical field. As improvements are made to 3D printing systems and new uses are allocated, medical device manufacturers are using them to improve products and better provide for consumers. This is commonly seen through consumer use of 3D-printed prosthetic limbs and orthopedic implants. Many researchers are also using 3D printing technology to generate organs for transplant surgeries. By utilizing the technology, manufacturers can lower costs while making products tailored to the needs of the consumer. This concept can also be applied to the creation of drugs. By utilizing 3D printing, drug manufacturers and hospitals can generate medication that is tailored to the individual metabolic needs of the consumer, making the medicine safer and more effective. This potential, however, is limited by FDA regulations.

3D-printed drugs have the potential to make pill and tablet-based drugs safer and more effective for consumers. Currently, when a person picks up their prescription the drug comes in a set dose (for example, Tylenol tablets commonly come in doses of 325 or 500 mg per tablet). Because the pills come in these doses, it limits the amount that can be taken to multiples of these numbers. While this will create a safe and effective response in most people, what if your drug metabolism requires a different dose to create maximum effectiveness?

Drug metabolism is the process where drugs are chemically transformed into a substance that is easier to excrete from the body. This process primarily happens in the kidney and is influenced by various factors such as genetics, age, concurrent medications, and certain health conditions. The rate of drug metabolism can have a major impact on the safety and efficacy of drugs. If drugs are metabolized too slowly it can increase the risk of side effects, but if they are metabolized too quickly the drug will not be as effective. 3D printing the drugs can help minimize these problems by printing drugs with doses that match an individual’s metabolic needs, or by printing drugs in structures that affect the speed that the tablet dissolves. These individualized tablets could be printed at the pharmacy and provided straight to the consumer. However, doing so will force pharmacies and drug companies to deal with additional regulatory hurdles.

Pharmacies that 3D print drugs will be forced to comply with Current Good Manufacturing Procedures (CGMPs) as determined by the FDA. See 21 C.F.R. § 211 (2020). CGMPs are designed to ensure that drugs are manufactured safely to protect the health of consumers. Each pharmacy will need to ensure that the printers’ design conforms to the CGMPs, periodically test samples of the drugs for safety and efficacy, and conform to various other regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 211.65, 211.110 (2020). These additional safety precautions will place a larger strain on pharmacies and potentially harm the other services that they provide.

Additionally, the original drug developers will be financially burdened. When pharmacies 3D print the medication, they will become a new manufacturing location. Additionally, utilizing 3D printing technology will lead to a change in the manufacturing process. These changes will require the original drug developer to update their New Drug Application (NDA) that declared the product as safe and effective for use. Updating the NDA will be a costly process that will further be complicated by the vast number of new manufacturing locations that will be present. Because each pharmacy that decides to 3D print the medicine on-site will be a manufacturer, and because it is unlikely that all pharmacies will adopt 3D printing at the same time, drug developers will constantly need to update their NDA to ensure compliance with FDA regulations. Although these regulatory hurdles seem daunting, the FDA can take steps to mitigate the work needed by the pharmacies and manufacturers.

The FDA should implement a regulatory exception for pharmacies that 3D print drugs. The exemption should allow pharmacies to avoid some CGMPs for manufacturing and allow pharmacies to proceed without being registered as a manufacturer for each drug they are printing. One possibility is to categorize 3D-printed drugs as a type of compounded drug. This will allow pharmacies that 3D print drugs to act under section 503A of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act. Under this section, the pharmacies would not need to comply with CGMPs or premarket approval requirements. The pharmacies, however, will need to comply with the section 503A requirements such as having the printing be performed by a licensed pharmacist in a state-licensed pharmacy or by a licensed physician, limiting the interstate distribution of the drugs to 5%, only printing from bulk drugs manufactured by FDA licensed establishments and only printing drugs “based on the receipt of a valid prescription for an individualized patient”. Although this solution limits the situations where 3D prints drugs can be made, it will allow the pharmacies to avoid the additional time and cost that would otherwise be required while helping ensure the safety of the drugs.

This solution would be beneficial for the pharmacies wishing to 3D print drugs, but it comes with some drawbacks. One of the main drawbacks is that there is no adverse event reporting requirement under section 503A. This will likely make it harder to hold pharmacies accountable for dangerous mistakes. Another issue is that pharmacies registered as an outsourcing facility under section 503B of the FD&C Act will not be able to avoid conforming to CGMPs unless they withdraw their registration. This issue, however, could be solved by an additional exemption from CGMPs for 3D-printed drugs. Even with these drawbacks, including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs proposes a relatively simple way to ease the burden on pharmacies that wish to utilize this new technology.

3D printing drugs has the opportunity to change the medical drug industry. The 3D-printed drugs can be specialized for the individual needs of the patient, making them safer and more effective for each person. For this to occur, however, the FDA needs to create an exemption for these pharmacies by including 3D-printed drugs under the definition of compounded drugs.

Prevalence of Robot-Assisted Surgery Illustrates the Negatives of Fee-For-Service Systems

November 6, 2017
Economics, Healthcare, Medical Devices

Jacob Barnyard, MJSLT Staffer

In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the da Vinci Surgical System, a robot designed to aid surgeons perform minimally invasive surgeries. The system consists of multiple arms carrying a camera and surgical instruments controlled by a nearby surgeon through a specialized console.

While few would argue the cool-factor of this technology, the actual benefits are significantly less clear. Researchers have conducted multiple studies to determine how the system affects patient outcomes, with results varying based on the type of procedure. One finding has been fairly consistent, however: unsurprisingly, costs associated with the use of robots are significantly higher.

The use of the da Vinci Surgical System has increased enormously since its initial release, even in surgeries with little or no evidence of any benefit. A rational consumer, however, would try to maximize expected utility by only undergoing robotically-assisted surgery if the expected benefits for that particular surgery outweighed the expected increase in cost. A possible explanation for part of the growing popularity of this technology may be the prevalence of fee-for-service models in the U.S. healthcare system.

In a fee-for-service model, each service provider involved in a patient’s care charges separately and charges for each service provided. As a result, these providers have an incentive to perform as many different services as possible, frequently providing unnecessary care. The consumer has little reason to care about these increased costs because they are often paid by insurance companies. Consequently, when a surgeon suggests the use of the da Vinci Surgical System, the patient has no incentive to research whether the system actually provides any benefits for the surgery they are undergoing.

A proposed alternative method to the fee-for-service model is a system using bundled payments. Under this system, a provider charges one lump sum for its services and divides it between each party involved in providing the care. This eliminates the incentive to provide unnecessary care as that would only increase the provider’s costs without increasing revenue. Robots would theoretically only be used in surgeries if they actually provide a net benefit. A potential drawback, however, is a decrease in potentially helpful services in an effort to cut costs. Currently, the available evidence suggests that this is not an issue in practice, however, and that some performance indicators may actually improve.

The Affordable Care Act included incentives to adopt the bundled payment system, but fee-for-service is still vastly more common in the United States. While bundled payments have been shown to lead to a modest decrease in healthcare costs, many physicians are unsurprisingly opposed to the idea. Consequently, change to a bundled payment system on a meaningful scale is unlikely to occur under the incentive structure created by current laws.

Dinner for Two? Federal Regulations Indicate a Newfound Love for the Pediatric Medical Device Market

February 8, 2017
FDA, Healthcare, Medical Devices, Regulatory

Angela Fralish, MJLST Invited Blogger

In December 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act which includes Subtitle L “Priority Review for Breakthrough Devices” and Subtitle M “Medical Device Regulatory Process Improvement.” Subtitle L addresses efficiency in medical device development by allowing inventors to request an expedited review for inventions that target disease, and for which there is no alternative device is currently on the market. Subtitle M requires FDA staff to be trained in least burdensome concept reviews and allocates $500 million to speed up commercialization.

This Act presents growth opportunities for the pediatric medical device market which often lacks device development due to time and expense. Under the Cures Act, if the device targets a childhood disease and there is no alternative, this new regulation requires a priority review determination within 60 days from the FDA Secretary. Additionally, there are now $500 million supporting implementation of the priority review.

Currently, pediatric devices can take up to 10 years and $94 million to develop. Market incentives often drive device innovation and the market for children is small. Consequently, most developments are not initiated for profit, but for personal interest in children’s health.

For example, despite using an expedited review process under a humanitarian device exemption, an implantable rib to prevent thoracic collapse took 13 years just to get FDA approval to begin the commercialization process. The pediatric medical device market is viewed by some as a crisis and the 21^st Century Cures Act has the potential to improve kids’ health.

For lawyers, scientists and engineers, an increase in device development leads to an increase in demand for regulatory, design, reimbursement and scientific technology experts. Lawyers can make a major difference in getting devices from bench-to-bedside. On the other side of the fence is demand for the same to protect consumers from manufacturers taking advantage of the Cures Act. In fact, some tort lawyers directly oppose the Cures Act for fear of watered-down processes for safety in devices.

However, regardless of one’s stance on the issue, it’s a good time to show some legal love to the kiddos in need of growth in the pediatric medical device market.

Ensuring a Fair Trial in Medical Device Cases

January 21, 2017
FDA, Health, Medical Devices

Frank Griffin, M.D., J.D., Adjunct Professor, University of Arkansas School of Law

Dangerous medical devices have been in the news, and the Institute of Medicine—upon the FDA’s request—made recommendations to make device approval pathways safer, but little has changed. Orthopaedic device companies use the pathway that the Institute of Medicine called “flawed” to gain approval of 88% of their devices—resulting in an 11.5 times higher recall rate than if a more rigorous pathway to approval were chosen. Predictably, patients are often harmed by recalled devices (and likely other devices that are not officially recalled), but harmed patients may have no choice but to suffer the “overwhelming misfortune” (envisioned in Escola) of shouldering the burden of the companies’ design choices in the current unnecessarily prejudicial legal environment.

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the United States Supreme Court provided a framework for judges’ gatekeeper role in assessing the reliability and relevancy of scientific expert testimony to be heard by the jury. Unfortunately, judges may be overwhelmed and unintentionally unfair in handling a task that some judges from the beginning considered “daunting” complaining they were “no match” for the experts they face. Since Daubert, in limine challenges have increased, “primarily driven by a significant increase in the number of in limine challenges raised against plaintiff expert witnesses.”

However, there is hope for the overwhelmed judge sorting through the pretrial in limine motions regarding scientific experts in complex orthopaedic cases. As explored in depth in my recent article to allow for a fair trial, judges should place defense experts and epidemiology studies under greater scrutiny, while being more willing to admit the few experts available to plaintiffs in these often-novel cases. In addition, courts should require all experts to file conflict of interest disclosure forms under penalty of perjury similar to those used in the orthopaedic journals to assist with assessment of reliability—given that an overwhelming (>97%) majority of experts with stock options, consulting contracts, employment contracts or royalties report positive outcomes in their studies, and also considering that studies are generally reproducible only when <25% of the data comes from developers. On the plaintiffs’ side, judges should be more open to allowing experience experts and experts who do their research in preparation for trial—because in these novel cases, no other non-industry experts may exist to expose problems.

My article—“Prejudicial Interpretation of Expert Reliability on the ‘Cutting Edge’ Enables the Orthopaedic Implant Industry’s Bodily Eminent Domain Claim”—highlights information of which courts, attorneys, doctors, and patients should be aware. The article provides ways that the court may stand on equal ground with experts in these complex cases to fairly assess reliability and to do its part to create a safer and more effective medical device market that does not unnecessarily “take” Americans’ health.

Digital Health and Legal Aid: The Lawyer Will Skype You Now

November 1, 2016
Healthcare, Medical Devices, New Technology, Public Health

Angela Fralish, MJLST Invited Blogger

According to Dr. Shirley Musich’s research article: Homebound Older Adults: Prevalence, Characteristics, Health Care Utilization and Quality of Care, homebound patients are among the top 5% of medical service users with persistently high expenses. As it stands, about 3.6 million homebound Americans are in need of continuous medical care, but with the cost of healthcare rising, the number of elderly people retiring, hospitals closing in increasing numbers and physician shortages anticipated, caring for the homebound is becoming expensive and impractical. In an article titled Care of the Chronically Ill at Home: An Unresolved Dilemma in Health Policy for the United States, author Karen Buhler-Wilkerson notes that even after two centuries of various experiments to deliver and finance home health care, there are still too many unresolved issues.

One potential solution could be at the crossroads of technology, medicine and law. Telemedicine is a well-known medical technology providing cost effective medical care for the homebound. Becker’s reports that telemedicine visits are often more affordable, and access is a very important component, both in the sense of enabling patients to communicate through a smartphone, and the ability for clinicians to reach patients at a distance, particularly those for whom travel to a hospital on a weekly basis for necessary follow-ups or check-ins would be costly and is not feasible. Telemedicine is a form of affordable technology reaching homebound patients.

Legal aid organizations are also beginning to integrate virtual services for the homebound. For example, at Illinois Legal Aid Online, clients are able to have a live consultation with a legal professional, and in Maryland, a virtual courthouse is used for alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Some states, such as Alaska and New York, have advocated for virtual consults and hearings as part of a best practices model. On September 22^nd of this year, the ABA launched a free virtual legal advice clinic to operate as an online version of a walk in clinic. However, despite these responsive measures, virtual technology for legal aid is expensive and burdensome.

But what about the cancer patient who can’t get out of bed to come in for a legal aid appointment, but needs help with a disability claim to pay their medical bills? Could diversifying telehealth user interfaces help cure the accessibility gap for both medicine and law?

Some organizations have already begun collaborations to address these issues. Medical Legal Partnerships work together to provide comprehensive care through cost effective resource pooling of business funds and federal and corporate grant money. Partnerships resolve the sociolegal determinants impacting the health of a patient. One classic case example is the homebound patient with aggravated asthma living in a house with mold spores. A lawyer works to get the housing up to code, which reduces the asthma, and consequently future medical costs. Lawyers resolve the economic factors perpetuating a health condition while physicians treat it biologically. These partnerships are being implemented nationwide because of their proven results in decreasing the cost of care. In the case of telehealth, the homebound asthmatic patient, could log on to their computer, or work through an app on their phone, to show the attorney the living conditions in high resolution, in addition to receiving medical treatment.

The government seems to be favorable to these resolutions. The Health Resources and Services Administration allocated $18 million to health center collaborations seeking to improve quality care through health information technology. Further, the FDA has created the Digital Health program to encourage and foster collaborations in technologies to promote public health. Last year alone, Congress awarded $4 million to the Legal Services Corporation, who then disbursed that money among 15 legal aid organizations, many of which “will use technology to connect low-income populations to resources and services.” Telehealth innovation is a cornerstone for medical and legal professions committed to improvements in low cost quality patient care, especially for the homebound.

Medical facilities could even extend this same technology profitably by offering patients an in-house “attorney consult” service to improve quality of care. Much like the invention of the convenient cordless phone, a telehealth phone could be used in house or outpatient to give a health organization a leading market edge in addition to decreasing costs. Technology has yet to fully develop the number of ways that telehealth can be used to deliver legal services to improve healthcare.

So if there is a multidisciplinary call for digital aid, why aren’t we seeing more of it on a daily basis? For one, the regulatory law landscape may cause confusion. The FDA governs medical devices, the FTC regulates PHI data breaches and the FCC governs devices using broadcast services or electromagnetic spectrum. Telehealth touches on all of these and results in jurisdictional overlap amongst regulatory agencies. Other reasons may involve resistance to new technology and ever-evolving legislation and policies. In Teladoc, Inc., v. Texas Medical Board, a standard of care issue was raised when the medical board issued an injunction for physicians who prescribed medicine, but had not yet seen the patient in person. One physician in the case stated that without telehealth, his homebound patient would receive no treatment. Transitioning from traditional in person consultations to virtual assistance can greatly improve the health of patient, but has brought an entourage of notable concerns.

Allegedly, the use of telehealth was first executed by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876 when he made a phone call to his doctor. Over 140 years later, this technology is used by NASA for outer space health consults. While the technology is still relatively new, especially for collaborative patient treatment by doctors and lawyers, used wisely, it can be an interdisciplinary collaborative renaissance in using technology to improve healthcare systems and patient lives.

From all perspectives, virtual aid is well funded future component of both the medical and legal fields. It can be used in the legal sense to help people in need, in the business sense as an ancillary convenience service generating profits, or in the medical sense to provide care for the homebound. The trick will be to find engineers who can secure multiuse interfaces while meeting federal regulations and public demand. Only time will tell if such a tool can be efficiently developed.

Industry Giants Praise FDA Draft Guidance on Companion Diagnostics

October 26, 2016
FDA, Personalized Medicine, Pharmaceuticals

Na An, MJLST Article Editor

In July 2016, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft guidance document titled “Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product.” The new draft guidance aims to serve as a “practical guide” and assist sponsors of drugs and in vitro diagnostics (IVD) in developing these two products simultaneously. So far, FDA has received six public comments on the draft guide which are mostly positive, with Illumina calling the document “worth the wait,” and Genentech claiming it “crucial for the advancement of personalized medicine.”

A companion diagnostic includes a medical device, in this case an in vitro device, which provides safety and efficacy information of a corresponding drug or biological product. It is a critical component of precision medicine, the cornerstone of which is the ability to identify and measure biomarkers indicative of the patient’s response to a particular therapy. Approximately, a quarter of new drugs approved over the past two years were a drug-IVD companion. However, the codevelopment process is complicated by the fact that these two products may be developed on different schedules, subject to different regulatory requirements, and reviewed by different center at the FDA. The long-awaited draft guidance was in the works for more than a decade and intended to help sponsors and the FDA reviewers navigate these challenges.

In this draft guidance, FDA reiterates its general policy that IVD devices should receive marketing approval contemporaneously with the authorization of the corresponding therapeutic product. FDA states that “the availability of an IVD with ‘market-ready’ analytical performance characteristics . . . is highly recommended at the time of initiation of clinical trials intended to support approval of the therapeutic product.” FDA also recommends: “Using an analytically validated test is important to protect clinical trial subjects, to be able to interpret trial results when a prototype test is used, and to help to define acceptable performance characteristics for the development of the candidate IVD companion diagnostic.” The new draft guidance provides much more information about the technical and scientific aspects of the development process. For example, the draft guidance details the use of IVD prototype tests for the purpose of testing the drug early in the development, considerations for planning and executing a therapeutic product clinical trial that also includes the investigation of an IVD companion diagnostic, the use of a prospective-retrospective study approach, the use of training and validation sample sets, and the use of a master file for the therapeutic product to provide data in support of the IVD companion diagnostic marketing application.

The draft guidance has received high marks from industry giants. Illumina said the draft “has been a long time coming, eagerly anticipated, but worth the wait.” Yet, the gene sequencing giant also seeks more clarity from FDA on risk assessments and expectations for analytical validation prior to investigational IVD use in trials. “There is an opportunity here for FDA to add clarity on this important decision making process. We suggest this discussion on significant risk versus nonsignificant risk determinations be expanded and put into an appendix with examples. This is a unique opportunity for FDA to help sponsors get this process right,” Illumina says. On a similarly positive note, Genentech called the draft “crucial for the advancement of personalized medicine,” and supplementary to two previous guidance documents on next generation sequencing. In addition, Genentech notes that the scope of this IVD and drug co-development draft guidance “is limited, and therefore it does not address the requirements for development of complementary diagnostics or the challenges of co-development using high-throughput technologies such as Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) based test panels, which are an increasingly attractive tool for both developers and providers.” AstraZeneca, on the other hand, seeks more clarity on guidance on complementary diagnostics and clarifying between “patient enrichment” and “patient selection” and the resulting considerations on determination of significant risk uses of investigational devices.

We eagerly wait for FDA’s view of these comments and impacts of the guidance on the codevelopment of a drug-IVD companion.

Disruptive Manufacturing is Disrupting the Law: Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Presents a Symposium on the Rapid Emergence of 3-D Printing and Its Legal Implications

December 2, 2015
3-D Printing, Medical Devices, Public Health

Nia Chung, MJLST Symposium Editor

Imagine your six-week old newborn suddenly stops breathing. You rush him to the hospital, where he is diagnosed with tracheobronchomalacia, which means that his windpipe has collapsed. Your doctor tells you that she can provide the conventional treatment of conducting a tracheostomy and putting your newborn on a ventilator which might lead to further breathing problems and possible heart stoppage. She goes on to tell you that she can 3-D print a device that will instantly help your newborn breathe, and she does. This is a true story. Kaiba Gionfriddo, who was treated at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital through a groundbreaking cross-disciplinary effort between the University of Michigan’s Medical and Engineering schools, doctors, faculty, and researchers in 2011, was the first patient ever to experience a surgery of its kind. Kaiba’s story was just the beginning of medical and surgical breakthroughs using 3-D printing.

But what exactly is 3-D printing? 3-D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the process of making solid three-dimensional objects from a CAD (Computer Aided Design) digital file. Based on this digital file, 3-D modeling software “slices” the three dimensional model “into hundreds or thousands of horizontal layers. The sliced file is then uploaded to a 3-D printer, which creates the 3-D object. There are several technologies 3-D printer manufacturers can utilize to generate 3-D objects—some use melting or softening material in a technology called “selective laser sintering” or “fused deposition modeling” and others cure a photo-reactive resin with a UV laser. A small, low-quality object can be printed in less than 10 minutes, while larger, high-quality objects may take up to several hours to print. By and large, 3-D printers are cost-effective, efficient, and can provide insurmountable benefits to the healthcare industry.

Baby Kaiba and his biodegradable splint showed the world how 3-D printing can be used in healthcare. Researchers have taken it further by bioprinting trachea, grown using a patient’s own stem cell cultures. This would essentially be the “first artificial bioprinted organ,” and doctors are hoping for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. What the FDA has approved recently, however, is the first ever 3-D printed drug product. In August 2015, the FDA approved Aprecia Pharmaceutical’s Spritam (levetiracetam). A drug product used orally to treat “partial onset seizures, myoclonic seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in adults and children with epilepsy.” Other examples of how 3-D printing is transforming healthcare include 3-D printed blood vessels, heart valves, low-cost prosthetics designed specifically to a patient’s anatomy, and electronic sensors that monitor heart strain, oxygenation, and temperature that can be perfectly attached to a patient’s heart.

Although additive manufacturing is cost effective, waste-reducing, and efficient, it presents legal challenges in areas ranging from intellectual property to product liability. A white paper published by Reed Smith outlines the impact 3-D printing will have on areas including regulatory issues, patent and copyright law, tort liability, and insurance. For example, what is a “product”? Is it the CAD digital file, the 3-D printed product, or both? Who is the manufacturer? Is it CAD or is it the 3-D printer? If I am in need of a replacement hip, and agree to have a 3-D printed hip implanted into my body, if that product is defective, who is liable—the hospital that performed the hip replacement surgery, the 3-D printer manufacturer, or the 3-D imaging software? From an intellectual property law standpoint, 3-D printing can provide easier access to counterfeit products, and can blur the line on what constitutes patent infringement. If a hospital 3-D prints repairs a medical device by 3-D printing a nonpatented replacement component, this would likely be lawful. On the other hand, “replicating replicating a patented device by using a 3D printer to create all of its components may well constitute patent infringement.” Because 3-D printing brings, along with its benefits, many unanswered questions in the law, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology (MJLST) will be hosting a symposium on these very issues. It will feature experts on intellectual property, regulatory, and tort liability issues surrounding 3-D printing in an all day event. The symposium will consist of several panels and a keynote speech by Candice Ciresi, General Counsel of Stratasys, a leading 3-D printer manufacturer, along with breakfast and lunch. MJLST Volume 17.2, its symposium issue, will publish articles on issues covered at the live symposium.

Today, medical devices, body parts, pharmaceutical drugs, guns, and food can be 3-D printed in a matter of hours to be utilized by private citizens. Please join us at the symposium to hear from some of the nation’s experts on how we must regulate this technology moving forward and what we can expect from 3-D printing in the near future.

Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology presents “A Symposium on Disruptive Manufacturing: The Rapid Emergence of 3-D Printing and Arising Legal Concerns.” The symposium will be held on March 4, 2016 at Walter F. Mondale Hall, The University of Minnesota Law School, 229 19th Ave. South, Room 25, Minneapolis, MN 55455, from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. To attend the symposium or for more information, please e-mail chung439@umn.edu or visit the symposium’s website at https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/mjlst-symposium-2016-3-d-printing/home. Please visit and RSVP on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1651569518452959/

Disruptive Manufacturing is Disrupting the Law: Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology Presents a Symposium on the Rapid Emergence of 3-D Printing and Its Legal Implications

December 2, 2015
3-D Printing, Medical Devices, Public Health

Nia Chung, MJLST Symposium Editor

Imagine your six-week old newborn suddenly stops breathing. You rush him to the hospital, where he is diagnosed with tracheobronchomalacia, which means that his windpipe has collapsed. Your doctor tells you that she can provide the conventional treatment of conducting a tracheostomy and putting your newborn on a ventilator which might lead to further breathing problems and possible heart stoppage. She goes on to tell you that she can 3-D print a device that will instantly help your newborn breathe, and she does. This is a true story. Kaiba Gionfriddo, who was treated at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital through a groundbreaking cross-disciplinary effort between the University of Michigan’s Medical and Engineering schools, doctors, faculty, and researchers in 2011, was the first patient ever to experience a surgery of its kind. Kaiba’s story was just the beginning of medical and surgical breakthroughs using 3-D printing.

But what exactly is 3-D printing? 3-D printing, also called additive manufacturing, is the process of making solid three-dimensional objects from a CAD (Computer Aided Design) digital file. Based on this digital file, 3-D modeling software “slices” the three dimensional model “into hundreds or thousands of horizontal layers. The sliced file is then uploaded to a 3-D printer, which creates the 3-D object. There are several technologies 3-D printer manufacturers can utilize to generate 3-D objects—some use melting or softening material in a technology called “selective laser sintering” or “fused deposition modeling” and others cure a photo-reactive resin with a UV laser. A small, low-quality object can be printed in less than 10 minutes, while larger, high-quality objects may take up to several hours to print. By and large, 3-D printers are cost-effective, efficient, and can provide insurmountable benefits to the healthcare industry.

Baby Kaiba and his biodegradable splint showed the world how 3-D printing can be used in healthcare. Researchers have taken it further by bioprinting trachea, grown using a patient’s own stem cell cultures. This would essentially be the “first artificial bioprinted organ,” and doctors are hoping for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. What the FDA has approved recently, however, is the first ever 3-D printed drug product. In August 2015, the FDA approved Aprecia Pharmaceutical’s Spritam (levetiracetam). A drug product used orally to treat “partial onset seizures, myoclonic seizures and primary generalized tonic-clonic seizures in adults and children with epilepsy.” Other examples of how 3-D printing is transforming healthcare include 3-D printed blood vessels, heart valves, low-cost prosthetics designed specifically to a patient’s anatomy, and electronic sensors that monitor heart strain, oxygenation, and temperature that can be perfectly attached to a patient’s heart.

Although additive manufacturing is cost effective, waste-reducing, and efficient, it presents legal challenges in areas ranging from intellectual property to product liability. A white paper published by Reed Smith outlines the impact 3-D printing will have on areas including regulatory issues, patent and copyright law, tort liability, and insurance. For example, what is a “product”? Is it the CAD digital file, the 3-D printed product, or both? Who is the manufacturer? Is it CAD or is it the 3-D printer? If I am in need of a replacement hip, and agree to have a 3-D printed hip implanted into my body, if that product is defective, who is liable—the hospital that performed the hip replacement surgery, the 3-D printer manufacturer, or the 3-D imaging software? From an intellectual property law standpoint, 3-D printing can provide easier access to counterfeit products, and can blur the line on what constitutes patent infringement. If a hospital 3-D prints repairs a medical device by 3-D printing a nonpatented replacement component, this would likely be lawful. On the other hand, “replicating replicating a patented device by using a 3D printer to create all of its components may well constitute patent infringement.” Because 3-D printing brings, along with its benefits, many unanswered questions in the law, the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology (MJLST) will be hosting a symposium on these very issues. It will feature experts on intellectual property, regulatory, and tort liability issues surrounding 3-D printing in an all day event. The symposium will consist of several panels and a keynote speech by Candice Ciresi, General Counsel of Stratasys, a leading 3-D printer manufacturer, along with breakfast and lunch. MJLST Volume 17.2, its symposium issue, will publish articles on issues covered at the live symposium.

Today, medical devices, body parts, pharmaceutical drugs, guns, and food can be 3-D printed in a matter of hours to be utilized by private citizens. Please join us at the symposium to hear from some of the nation’s experts on how we must regulate this technology moving forward and what we can expect from 3-D printing in the near future.

Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology presents “A Symposium on Disruptive Manufacturing: The Rapid Emergence of 3-D Printing and Arising Legal Concerns.” The symposium will be held on March 4, 2016 at Walter F. Mondale Hall, The University of Minnesota Law School, 229 19th Ave. South, Room 25, Minneapolis, MN 55455, from 8:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. To attend the symposium or for more information, please e-mail chung439@umn.edu or visit the symposium’s website at https://sites.google.com/a/umn.edu/mjlst-symposium-2016-3-d-printing/home. Please visit and RSVP on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/events/1651569518452959/

510(k) Process Comes Under Renewed Scrutiny by Legislators, Awaiting FDA Response as Proposed Legislation Remains Stagnant

October 31, 2012
Medical Devices

by Ashley Zborowsky, UMN Law Student, MJLST Notes & Comments Editor

Several months ago, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) wrote a letter to Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, calling for an overhaul of the 510(k) pre-market notification database. The legislators cite reports of defective medical devices cleared via the 510(k) process in recent years, such as the DePuy® artificial hip, that have caused “grievous[] and irrevocabl[e]” harm to patients.

The issue? Most devices subject to premarket review are cleared through FDA’s 510(k) process which provides expedited approval for products that are deemed “substantially equivalent” to an existing predicate device. While the 510(k) process allows patients earlier access to devices, the system is inherently flawed. Referred to as “predicate creep,” the 510(k) process clears generations of devices–none of which have been subject to the exacting scrutiny of pre-market approval (the PMA process). As Markey and Merkley cite in their letter to Shuren, many predicate devices upon which new products rely for 510(k) clearance themselves have been recalled by manufacturers due to “fundamental design flaw[s].”

The legislators asked Shuren and the FDA to retrospectively update the 510(k) database to clearly indicate devices recalled for serious design flaws that could adversely affect safety or effectiveness. The letter also asked FDA, among other things, to develop a mechanism for identifying certain 510(k) entries to “reflect instances where a device’s clearance traces back to a predicate recalled for a serious design flaw adversely impacting its safety, even if the original problematic device is not the immediate predicate.” For additional in-depth discussion of issues surrounding the existing 510(k) process and substantial equivalence, including product liability considerations see “Rethinking Lohr: Does ‘SE’ Mean Safe and Effective, Substantially Equivalent, or Both?”

After the Institute of Medicine released its highly controversial report on the current 510(k) process last year (stating that the process is flawed and recommending a new pre- and post-market regulatory framework to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and efficacy), the issue of device safety has been omnipresent in policy debates surrounding related concerns of access and innovation. For a critique of the IOM report and a summary of its findings, see “A Failure to Comply: An Initial Assessment of Gaps in IM’s Medical Device Study Committee” and “Left to Their Own Devices: IOM’s Medical Device Committee’s Failure to Comply.” In January, Representative Markey and others introduced H.R. 3847, coined The SOUND Devices (Safety of Untested and New Devices) Act of 2012. The bill proposes to amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to allow the FDA to reject a claim of substantial equivalence for a device whose predicate has been “recalled, corrected or removed from the market because of an intrinsic flaw in technology or design that adversely affects safety . . . .” in light of these concerns.

In testimony given to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on device user fees back in February, Shuren discussed strategic priorities for the 510(k) process, including developing methods and procedures for the systematic analysis and use of medical device recall information by September 30, 2012. However, now that the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA III) have been enacted, reauthorizing device user fees through fiscal year 2017, perhaps the FDA and CRDH will finally be able to make progress in revamping the 510(k) system. As Shuren noted in his testimony, “[w]hile it is true that providing more user fee resources alone won’t solve the problems with our premarket programs, insufficient funding is at the root of, or a contributing factor to, several of these problems. Adequate and stable funding is one key component to our and industry’s success in bringing safe and effective devices to market quickly and efficiently.”

Currently, the 510(k) process remains unchanged. Though legislators requested an official response no later than September 19, 2012, the FDA and Shuren have yet to release a statement (at least publicly) regarding these concerns. Additionally, it is unclear whether CDRH has made any headway in meeting its target goals. As we approach the end of 2012, 510(k) still leaves much to be desired–the highly anticipated changes to the pre-market clearance process are provisional at best. It seems as though Markey isn’t having much luck in Congress either. H.R. 3847 is awaiting approval from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (and has been since shortly after its introduction). According to GovTrack.us, an online bill tracking website, the bill has only an estimated three percent change of being enacted.

Contact Information