FDA’s Shuren Makes West Coast Swing, Talks About Regulatory Reform

what it means if a genetic diagnostic test result indicates, for example, a 10 percent risk of diabetes. In other words, what does a given diagnostic result mean? And at what point does the data become relevant and useful?

In an FDA blog last month, Shuren outlined some of the agency’s accomplishments so far. But now comes the hard part. In discussing his quest to bring clarity, efficiency, and consistency to the process of ensuring that medical products are safe and effective, Shuren says agency officials need better scientific tools to carry out their regulatory duties. “If the U.S. wants to remain the leader in medical device innovation, we also must be the leader in regulatory science,” he says.

The improved regulatory tools Shuren has in mind include improved computer modeling, which could be used to more accurately predict the safety and effectiveness of devices under different conditions. He also wants the industry to help pool its resources by creating what he calls a “Switzerland” for medical devices—a public-private biomedical research partnership like the pharmaceutical industry’s Biomarkers Consortium,that could be used to safely share proprietary information without fear of having trade secrets leaked to competitors. Establishing a similar entity for medical devices is more of a challenge, Shuren says, because the universe of device makers includes consumer electronics, wireless, and other non-traditional biomedical companies and product life cycles are short and fiercely competitive.

Shuren and Biocom’s Panetta also talked about the necessity of engaging FDA regulators much earlier in the development process for medical devices. “The more than we can do to engage the agency early on, the better off we’re going to be down the road,” Panetta says. With genetic diagnostics, for example, he says, “We don’t want to be caught off guard in the future because we haven’t engaged at the level that Jeff is talking about with some of this personal genomics technology. We want to avoid those types of situations in the future. We hope by developing this public-private partnership, we can be getting answers to those types of questions at a much earlier stage and we hope to create a much more expeditious and smoother review process.”

Or as Shuren put it, “It’s a little bit of Dorothy and the red slippers. You can get back to Kansas, but you have to be willing to use the tools you’ve been given.”

Author: Bruce V. Bigelow

In Memoriam: Our dear friend Bruce V. Bigelow passed away on June 29, 2018. He was the editor of Xconomy San Diego from 2008 to 2018. Read more about his life and work here. Bruce Bigelow joined Xconomy from the business desk of the San Diego Union-Tribune. He was a member of the team of reporters who were awarded the 2006 Pulitzer Prize in National Reporting for uncovering bribes paid to San Diego Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham in exchange for special legislation earmarks. He also shared a 2006 award for enterprise reporting from the Society of Business Editors and Writers for “In Harm’s Way,” an article about the extraordinary casualty rate among employees working in Iraq for San Diego’s Titan Corp. He has written extensively about the 2002 corporate accounting scandal at software goliath Peregrine Systems. He also was a Gerald Loeb Award finalist and National Headline Award winner for “The Toymaker,” a 14-part chronicle of a San Diego start-up company. He takes special satisfaction, though, that the series was included in the library for nonfiction narrative journalism at the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. Bigelow graduated from U.C. Berkeley in 1977 with a degree in English Literature and from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in 1979. Before joining the Union-Tribune in 1990, he worked for the Associated Press in Los Angeles and The Kansas City Times.