Notice what everyone assumes about tissue engineering: It's complex, biological, therefore it must go through CBER as a biologic. But what if that assumption is costing patients years?
Here's the regulatory sleight of hand nobody talks about: The same tissue-engineered construct can be classified as either a medical device (CDRH) or human cells/tissues (CBER), depending entirely on how you frame the intended use and mechanism of action.
The literature reveals the jurisdictional split that most BioDAOs miss: Point-of-care devices creating therapeutic constructs go to CBER, but processing devices and scaffolds can route through CDRH as Class I or II devices. That's the difference between 2-3 years of clinical validation versus 6-12 months for device clearance.
Let me give you the math that changes everything. CBER biologics pathway: Extensive preclinical safety/efficacy studies, IND filing, multi-phase clinical trials, BLA submission. Total time: 5-8 years, $50-100M investment. CDRH device pathway for moderate-risk Class II: Predicate device comparison, 510(k) substantial equivalence, focused clinical data. Total time: 12-18 months, $2-5M investment.
The strategic insight everyone misses: If your tissue engineering approach works primarily through physical/mechanical effects rather than cellular/biological activity, you can argue for device classification. Scaffold providing structural support? Device. Matrix guiding tissue growth through topography? Device. Living cells doing the therapeutic work? Biologic.
But here's where it gets interesting—combination products. When