Findings
The traditional process of evaluating biomarkers within the context of a single drug development program is inefficient and creates uncertainty for sponsors. This case-by-case approach leads to redundant efforts, slows down the development of novel therapies, and hinders the broad adoption of promising scientific tools. There is a clear need for a centralized, collaborative pathway to formally validate biomarkers, which can de-risk drug development, encourage innovation, and make the process more predictable and cost-effective for all stakeholders.

Recommendations
Drug developers, academic researchers, and other stakeholders should proactively engage with the FDA through the formal Biomarker Qualification Program to validate biomarkers for specific contexts of use. It is recommended to form public-private partnerships and other collaborations to pool resources and data, which strengthens the evidence package for a biomarker's utility. Developers should use the qualification process to establish a biomarker's value early, making it a publicly available and reliable tool that can accelerate the development of multiple drug products.

Regulatory Considerations
The Biomarker Qualification Program provides a distinct regulatory pathway for establishing a biomarker's validity for a specific Context of Use (COU), separate from an individual Investigational New Drug (IND) or New Drug Application (NDA). The process involves a three-stage submission and review cycle: the Letter of Intent, the Qualification Plan, and the Full Qualification Package. Once qualified, a biomarker is publicly listed and can be incorporated into multiple drug development programs without the need for sponsors to re-submit and re-justify the validation data for that specific COU, streamlining subsequent regulatory reviews.

Findings
Cybersecurity is an integral part of medical device safety and effectiveness, and manufacturers are responsible for addressing it throughout the entire device lifecycle. The FDA considers a device's cybersecurity as part of its benefit-risk assessment for both premarket and postmarket activities. A lack of robust cybersecurity controls can lead to patient harm, compromised device functionality, and breaches of data privacy. The dynamic nature of cybersecurity threats requires ongoing monitoring, risk management, and timely implementation of mitigation strategies.

Recommendations
Manufacturers should build cybersecurity into devices from the design phase ("secure by design") and conduct a thorough risk analysis to identify and mitigate potential vulnerabilities. Premarket submissions should include comprehensive documentation of the device's cybersecurity controls, a risk management plan, and a plan for postmarket surveillance and response. Manufacturers should establish a robust postmarket surveillance program to monitor for, identify, and address new cybersecurity threats in a timely manner. Clear and informative labeling is essential to help users understand and manage cybersecurity risks.

Regulatory Considerations
The FDA has the authority to take action against devices with inadequate cybersecurity that pose a risk to public health. The agency recommends that manufacturers use the Q-submission process to discuss specific cybersecurity questions related to their device submissions. Compliance with recognized standards and best practices for cybersecurity is strongly encouraged. Manufacturers must report certain cybersecurity incidents to the FDA as part of their postmarket reporting requirements. The FDA collaborates with other government agencies and stakeholders to promote a coordinated approach to medical device cybersecurity.

Key Principles (Findings)
This guidance establishes that the eSTAR platform will become the mandatory format for the electronic submission of medical device Pre-Submissions to the FDA. A key principle is that a properly completed eSTAR submission is considered a 'complete' submission, which allows it to bypass the traditional Refuse-to-Accept (RTA) process and instead undergo a more focused technical screening within 15 days. The structure of the eSTAR template is designed to align with the FDA's internal review memo, creating a more efficient and consistent review process. The guidance also makes it clear that while eSTAR use is currently voluntary, it will become required for Pre-Subs at least one year after this guidance is finalized.

Recommendations for Industry
The primary recommendation for industry is to familiarize themselves with and begin voluntarily using the eSTAR platform for Pre-Submissions in advance of the mandatory deadline. The guidance recommends that submitters use the structured, dynamic PDF to ensure all necessary elements of a complete submission are included, thereby facilitating a smoother and more efficient review. For certain types of follow-up communications, such as submitting meeting minutes or presentation slides, the guidance recommends they continue to be submitted as an eCopy rather than through the eSTAR template.

Regulatory Considerations
This guidance is issued under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act, which mandates the transition to electronic-only submissions. Upon finalization, the requirement to use the eSTAR template for Pre-Subs will be a binding regulatory requirement. The guidance outlines a specific technical screening process for eSTAR submissions that will replace the RTA process. If a submission fails this screening, it will be placed on hold, and the review clock will restart upon receipt of the corrected information. The document also specifies certain types of submissions, such as appeals and withdrawal requests, that will be exempt from the mandatory eSTAR requirement.

Findings
The development and evaluation of medical devices require scientifically plausible and reliable tools for collecting data to support regulatory submissions. A lack of standardized, pre-vetted tools can lead to inefficiencies and unpredictability in the device development and review process. The qualification of development tools can be applied across a wide range of device areas, including cardiovascular, neurology, imaging, and cybersecurity. The evidence required for tool qualification must be robust enough to support its intended context of use.

Recommendations
Tool developers, medical device sponsors, research organizations, and academic institutions are encouraged to voluntarily submit proposals to the MDDT program to qualify their tools. Submissions should include a detailed description of the tool, a clearly defined context of use (COU), specific performance criteria, and a comprehensive plan for collecting evidence to validate the tool's performance and scientific plausibility. Collaboration in developing tools and supporting evidence is recommended to pool resources and increase the acceptance of qualified tools.

Regulatory Considerations
The MDDT program is a formal regulatory mechanism for the FDA to qualify tools that can be used to support assessments of medical device safety, effectiveness, or performance. Once a tool is qualified for a specific context of use, the FDA accepts assessments from that tool in support of regulatory submissions without needing to re-evaluate the tool's suitability. The program recognizes four main categories of tools: Non-clinical Assessment Models (NAM), Biomarker Tests (BT), Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA), and an "Other" category for tools that do not fit the primary classifications.

Findings
Evaluating patient outcomes on a case-by-case basis within individual drug programs is an inefficient use of resources and creates regulatory unpredictability. This approach frequently leads to redundant efforts to validate the same assessment tools across different development programs. The lack of a standardized, transparent process for accepting Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) hinders the development and use of novel, patient-centric endpoints, ultimately slowing the delivery of therapies that address outcomes that matter most to patients.

Recommendations
Developers of COAs, including patient groups, academic researchers, and pharmaceutical sponsors, are encouraged to collaborate with the FDA through the qualification program. This engagement should occur early to ensure that the measures are developed with sufficient rigor to meet regulatory standards. Stakeholders should leverage the program to validate a wide range of COAs, particularly Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs), making them publicly available to advance patient-focused drug development across the entire industry and reduce redundant validation work.

Regulatory Considerations
The COA Qualification Program offers a formal regulatory pathway for the FDA to review and accept a COA for a specific Context of Use (COU). This qualification is separate from the review of an individual drug application, making the validated tool accessible for any sponsor to use in their clinical trials without re-adjudicating the COA's fitness for that purpose. Qualification requires a comprehensive submission demonstrating the measure is well-defined and reliable, ensuring that it appropriately captures the patient's experience or functional status.

Findings
Enhanced documentation is required for high-risk device software where flaws could result in serious injury or death.
Risk management plans should include robust risk assessments, including residual risk evaluations.
Verification and validation activities are critical to confirm software functionality and mitigate risks.
The lack of traceability between software design and requirements can undermine device safety and effectiveness.
Unresolved software anomalies must be carefully documented and justified based on a risk assessment.

Recommendations
Use a risk-based approach to determine whether basic or enhanced documentation levels are required for premarket submissions.
Include comprehensive risk management documentation, detailing hazard identification, risk control measures, and residual risk evaluations.
Provide detailed system and software architecture diagrams, highlighting relationships between modules and external systems.
Document unresolved software anomalies and justify their impact on safety and effectiveness using a risk-based rationale.
Align software development, configuration management, and maintenance practices with FDA-recognized standards like ANSI/AAMI/IEC 62304.

Regulatory Considerations
Adherence to 21 CFR Part 820 Quality System regulations, emphasizing design controls and risk management.
Submission of risk management files and unresolved software anomalies as part of premarket documentation.
Use of system and software architecture diagrams to demonstrate software functionality and risk mitigation.
Implementation of cybersecurity measures as part of software validation and risk management processes.
Documentation of premarket changes and interactions between device functions and external systems, particularly in multi-function devices.

Findings
There is widespread confusion among digital health developers regarding the complex and evolving regulatory landscape, with many uncertain about whether their products require regulation or which pathway to pursue. This lack of a clear regulatory strategy acts as a significant barrier to market access, investor confidence, and user trust. The heterogeneity of the digital health sector, coupled with varying international requirements, further complicates the path to market for innovators, hindering the scalability of effective solutions.

Recommendations
Digital health innovators should proactively integrate a tailored regulatory strategy into their core business plan, viewing it as a commercial differentiator rather than a hurdle. Developers are encouraged to utilize resources like DiMe’s regulatory pathway tools to navigate the U.S. and global landscapes effectively. Early and continuous engagement with regulators and collaborative efforts across the industry are essential to ensure products are developed to meet both market needs and regulatory standards, ultimately accelerating the delivery of high-quality digital health solutions to patients.

Regulatory Considerations
A comprehensive policy framework is necessary for the successful integration of digital health technologies, encompassing regulatory authorization, value assessment, and reimbursement. Developers must understand the nuances of different regulatory classifications, such as Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), and their specific evidentiary requirements. Greater international harmonization of regulatory standards is crucial for enabling global scalability. Regulatory bodies should continue to develop agile frameworks that can accommodate the rapid pace of innovation in digital health while ensuring patient safety and product effectiveness.

Findings
AI-DSFs undergo iterative improvements, necessitating a structured framework for modifications to ensure safety and effectiveness.
PCCPs enable manufacturers to streamline modifications by avoiding repeated marketing submissions, reducing regulatory burden.
Critical elements of a PCCP include data management practices, re-training protocols, performance evaluation, and user update procedures.
Comprehensive risk management and transparency are essential to address potential biases and maintain user trust.
Certain modifications, such as those significantly affecting safety or effectiveness, may still require a new marketing submission.

Recommendations
Structure PCCPs with a clear description of planned modifications, a detailed modification protocol, and a robust impact assessment.
Include methods for data collection, re-training, and performance evaluation aligned with quality system regulations.
Specify user update procedures to communicate changes transparently and ensure safe device use.
Address cybersecurity risks and bias mitigation strategies in modification protocols.
Use the FDA Q-Submission Program to discuss PCCPs prior to submitting marketing applications for AI-DSFs.

Regulatory Considerations
Adherence to 21 CFR Part 820 Quality System Regulations, including design controls and risk management.
PCCPs must include modifications that would otherwise require a PMA supplement or new 510(k) submission.
Modifications implemented under PCCPs must conform to FDA-reviewed protocols and be documented in the device master record.
Transparency to users via device labeling updates and public summaries of authorized PCCPs is required.
Modifications outside the scope of an authorized PCCP or deviations from the protocol require new FDA marketing submissions.

Findings
Pre-Submissions (Pre-Subs) allow submitters to obtain FDA feedback on specific questions before submitting formal IDEs, 510(k)s, PMAs, or other applications. Early feedback can improve submission quality and streamline the review process.
Submission Issue Requests (SIRs) provide a mechanism for addressing issues raised in FDA hold letters (e.g., 510(k) deficiencies) to help expedite resolutions.
Study Risk Determinations help sponsors clarify whether clinical studies are significant risk (SR), non-significant risk (NSR), or exempt from IDE regulations.
Informational Meetings are non-feedback sessions aimed at familiarizing FDA staff with new devices or sharing updates on ongoing development.
The program encourages timely submissions, including supplements for ongoing discussions and amendments to update materials.

Recommendations
Clearly define the purpose and goals of the Q-Sub in the submission to facilitate effective FDA review.
Include specific, well-formulated questions that focus on a limited number of topics to ensure actionable feedback.
For Pre-Subs, align planned testing and submissions with FDA guidance and include detailed device descriptions, testing protocols, and relevant background information.
Use SIRs to discuss proposed solutions to deficiencies raised in FDA hold letters, focusing on timely resolution.
Draft and submit meeting minutes promptly (within 15 days of meetings) to ensure accurate documentation of FDA feedback.

Regulatory Considerations
Submitters should adhere to the timelines specified for different Q-Sub types, including 70 days for Pre-Sub feedback or 21 days for SIRs submitted promptly after a hold letter.
Q-Subs should include all relevant regulatory history and references to prior FDA communications to streamline the review process.
FDA feedback through the Q-Sub program is non-binding and based on the information available at the time; subsequent submissions must align with the provided feedback to maintain consistency.
Informational Meeting requests should clearly state that feedback is not expected and may be used to track interactions outside other formal Q-Sub types.
Confidentiality of Q-Subs is maintained in compliance with FDA’s disclosure regulations and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Findings
There are various formal and informal engagement pathways available for developers of Digital Health Products and Combination Products to communicate with the FDA to seek advice regarding product classification, regulatory status, and submission strategies. Informal pathways include the Digital Health Inquiry (via the Digital Health Inbox), the DICE Mailbox Inquiry, and the Pre-RFD Process, which provide non-binding feedback. Formal pathways include the 513(g) Program for classification, and the Q-Submission Program (encompassing Pre-Submissions for pre-application feedback and SRD for risk determination).

Recommendations
Manufacturers should use the provided map to determine the appropriate pathway based on their product type (standalone digital health or combination product) and the type of advice they are seeking (informal or formal). The Pre-Submission (Pre-Sub) program is recommended as an opportunity to obtain formal feedback "prior" to submitting an application, particularly if a new product's regulatory pathway is unclear or if planning a study to support a future application. Combination Product manufacturers can use CPAMs to clarify marketing authorization standards or post-market modification requirements.

Regulatory Considerations
The 513(g) Request provides information on a product's classification and applicable regulatory requirements but does not determine substantial equivalence or make final marketing authorization decisions. Programs like the CDRH-Payor Connection and Parallel Review with CMS are voluntary and designed to expedite patient access by aligning clinical evidence for both regulatory clearance/approval and coverage decisions. Participation in these programs, however, does not alter the FDA’s existing, separate standards for regulatory review.

Findings
Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) instruments are a type of Clinical Outcome Assessment that provides valid scientific evidence for regulatory and healthcare decision-making regarding medical devices. The FDA encourages the integration of patient perspectives throughout the Total Product Lifecycle (TPLC). PRO instruments can be used to measure the effects of a medical intervention, including the impact on patient well-being and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL). The validity evidence needed to support a PRO instrument's use is determined by its specific Context of Use (COU) and role (e.g., primary, secondary endpoint) in the clinical study protocol. To be "fit-for-purpose," a PRO instrument must measure a Concept of Interest (COI) that is meaningful to patients and whose measurement is supported by evidence that is consistent with the intended use population.

Recommendations
Sponsors should establish and clearly define the Concept of Interest (COI) the PRO instrument is intended to capture. It is recommended that sponsors clearly identify the role of the PRO (e.g., primary, secondary, effectiveness, safety) in the clinical study protocol and statistical analysis plan. The development or modification of PRO instruments should measure concepts important to patients to reduce unnecessary patient burden and ensure the outcomes are relevant to a patient's daily lived experience. Cognitive interviews should be conducted to ensure the instrument's instructions and items are understandable to the intended use population, including patients with limited English language proficiency. Sponsors are encouraged to leverage existing PRO instruments (by using them as-is, modifying, or adapting) as a least burdensome approach to take advantage of existing validity evidence. Alternative approaches, such as using Real-World Data (RWD) platforms or conducting parallel development work during clinical studies, are encouraged to efficiently generate validity evidence.

Regulatory Considerations
The FDA encourages sponsors to engage with the Agency regarding the relevance and suitability of a proposed PRO instrument early in the development process, prior to the Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) submission or pivotal study. The Q-Submission program is the recommended pathway for sponsors to obtain feedback from the FDA regarding cognitive interview approaches and the modification or adaptation of existing instruments. The Agency uses the fit-for-purpose concept as a flexible approach to determine the validity evidence needed for a PRO instrument's specified use for a regulatory purpose. The use of PRO instruments that have been qualified under the Medical Device Development Tools (MDDT) program is encouraged. Sponsors should prospectively specify the intent to generate validity evidence in the clinical study protocol and statistical analysis plan, even if the evidence will only support future studies.

Findings
The FDA has distinct engagement pathways depending on whether the product is a Standalone Digital Health Product or a Combination Product. The pathways are further categorized into Informal and Formal advice.
Informal Pathways include:
Digital Health Inquiry (Digital health inbox, DICE mailbox inquiry).
General Inquiry for combination products.
CDRH List & Learn.
Formal Pathways for digital health and combination products include:
513(g) request (for classification information).
Q-Submission Program (Pre-Submission, Submission Issue Request (SIR), Information meeting).
CDRH-payor connection (Early payor feedback program, Parallel review with CMS).
RFD/Pre-RFD process (Request for Designation).

Recommendations
Developers should use this map to identify the appropriate mechanism for seeking regulatory advice. The initial decision point is whether the engagement is related to the design, development, or deployment of a digital health product. Once the product type is identified, the map directs the user to the appropriate formal or informal path. The various mechanisms are used for different purposes, such as an Information meeting (to share information without expecting feedback) or a Pre-Submission program (for formal feedback on a planned product).

Regulatory Considerations
The pathways involve different Centers and Offices, including the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Office of Combination Products (OCP). The FDA's focus is on engagement pathways for digital health products. For information on developing digitally derived endpoints for drugs, developers are directed to the DiMe and CTTI guides. Engagement is related to design, development, or deployment of the product