Blog

Archive for 510(k)

Reprocessed Single-Use Devices: Considerations for a 510k Submission

This is blog entry summarizing an article published on the FDAeCopy website about the unique challenges of 510k submissions for reprocessed devices.

FDA eCopy Blog Abstract Reprocessed Single Use Devices: Considerations for a 510k Submission

Mary Vater joined Medical Device Academy as a new regulatory consultant in March 2017. She published her first new blog on our FDA eCopy website today. The blog explains the unique challenges of reprocessed single-use devices when preparing a 510k submission.

Challenges of 510k Submissions for reprocessed devices

There are three areas in particular that challenge reprocessors when preparing a 510k submission for reprocessed single-use devices:

  1. Section 13, labeling
  2. Section 15, biocompatiblity
  3. Section 18, performance testing

In her article, Mary reviews each of these sections of a 510k submission and identifies both pitfalls and solutions for testing requirements in each of the sections of a 510k.

One of the most important things to know when preparing a 510k submission for a reprocessed device, is whether you need to perform any biocompatibility testing at all. Biocompatibility testing is one of the longest verification and validation tests–as well as the most costly. If you do not modify the device during reprocessing, then you don’t need to perform biocompatibility testing. This article reviews the types of modifications that will require biocompatibility testing.

You also need to develop your own instructions for use and labeling for reprocessed devices. You can reference the original equipment manufacturer’s (OEM) IFU, but you there is specific information needed for reprocessed devices that should be included. This information includes the name and model number of the OEM device.

Finally, it is not enough to provide performance testing data showing that after reprocessing a device it remains equivalent to the OEM device. You must show that the performance remains equivalent after multiple reprocessing cycles. Most devices will deteriorate over time and may only be able to survive a certain number of reprocessing cycles. This testing data needs to be included in your 510k submission.

If you are interested in learning more about how to prepare a 510(k) for a reprocessed single-use device, please visit the FDA eCopy website.

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (0) →

FDA eCopy Website – Printing and Shipping Resources

Blog describes the new FDA eCopy website to help you successfully deliver your first FDA eCopy and to troubleshoot problems with eCopy submissions.

FDAeCopy Logo 1024x478 FDA eCopy Website   Printing and Shipping Resources

Easlier today I posted a new blog on the topic of “Pre-submission Meeting Request Feedback Methods” on the FDA eCopy website. If you are almost done with preparation of your 510k submission or a pre-submission meeting request, you can save yourself some time and prevent mistakes by visiting my new FDA eCopy website. In October the website and service was launched, and the first customers hired us to help them with printing and shipping their FDA eCopy submissions. In January the first blog was posted, and I will continue posting weekly blogs about 510k submissions and the FDA eCopy process to help you streamline your own printing and shipping of FDA eCopy submissions.

What’s on the FDA eCopy Website?

The FDA eCopy website includes a weekly blog on topics related to FDA 510k submissions, pre-submission meeting requests and other types of FDA submissions that require an FDA eCopy. In addition to the home page which is the weekly blog, you will also find links to the following useful resource pages:

  • Share eCopy Now – a page that explains how to submit content to FDA eCopy for your submission using Dropbox or some other file sharing service
  • eCopy Service – a page explaining the FDA eCopy service
  • Formatting Checklist – a page that explains our FDA eCopy checklist created for internal use to ensure that 100% of FDA eCopy submissions are successfully uploaded by the FDA; the page also has a form for downloading our checklist if you want to create your own FDA eCopy
  • Price of Service – a page describing pricing of this printing and shipping service
  • Arrival Time – a page that explains when your FDA eCopy will arrive at the FDA in Silver Spring, MD
  • FedEx Tracking – if you click on the image of the FedEx airplane on the FDA eCopy website, it will immediately take you to FedEx tracking and you can enter your own tracking number to track your FDA eCopy shipment (don’t worry, it will arrive at 10am and you will receive an acknowledgement just after 4pm the same day)

From now on, most of my blog posts related to 510k submissions will be found the FDA eCopy website. There is one blog specific to eCopy submissions on this website that you might be interested in. Click here if you want to learn how to eliminate hidden system folders from your FDA eCopy flash drive.

If you want to learn more about 510k submissions in general, consider attending one of the live 510k workshops.

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (0) →

Redacted 510k Database – Have you used the newest FDA tool?

This article describes the new database of redacted 510k submissions that was recently made available on-line for immediate download by the US FDA.

Number of Redacted 510k Available Since November 2000 Redacted 510k Database   Have you used the newest FDA tool?

Recently the FDA made redacted 510k submissions that were previously released through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests available on-line for immediate download. There are 496 redacted 510k submissions available since November 2000–as indicated by the graph above. This is only a small fraction of the total number of 510k submissions, but the number that are available on-line will increase over time.

Types of redacted 510k Submissions

Of the 496 submissions there is a mixture of submission types.

  • 382 are traditional 510k submissions
  • 97 are special 510k submissions
  • 17 are abbreviated 510k submissions
  • 14 were 3rd Party reviewed

What remains in a redacted 510k submission

The redacted versions do not include testing data, but you will find other goodies such as:

  • 3rd Party SE memorandums (where applicable)
  • Table of Contents
  • Pre-market Notification Cover Sheet (i.e., FDA Form 3514)
  • 510k Cover Letter
  • Indications for Use (i.e., FDA Form 3881)
  • 510(k) Summary
  • Truthful & Accuracy Statement
  • Device Description
  • Executive Summary
  • Substantial Equivalence Discussion (Partially Redacted)
  • Summary of Biocompatibility Testing (Partially Redacted)
  • Summary of Sterilization & Shelf-Life (Partially Redacted)
  • Proposed Labeling
  • Predicate Device Labeling
  • Declarations of Conformity (i.e., FDA Form 3654)
  • Deficiency Letter

This is extremely valuable information that can be used to help select a potential predicate and to develop a verification and validation testing plan. If you are less experienced in the preparation of a 510k submission it will help to see how other regulatory experts have organized their own 510k submissions.

Learning more about redacted 510k submissions

In order to access this database, click on this link: Redacted FOIA 510k Database. In order to limit your search to only 510k submissions that are available as a redacted full 510k, just click on the box for “Redacted FOIA 510k.” If you are interested in learning more about how to make the most of this new resource, please sign up for my new webinar on Monday, November 21 @ 9am EST.

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (0) →

Abbreviated 510k or Traditional 510k, which should you choose?

This article briefly explains the three types of 510k submissions and identifies when you should be submitting an abbreviated 510k instead of a traditional 510k.

Abbreviated 510k Abbreviated 510k or Traditional 510k, which should you choose?Three types of 510k submissions

The FDA has three different target timelines for reviewing a 510k submission and issuing a decision regarding substantial equivalence (i.e., SE Letter):

  1. Special 510k
  2. Abbreviated 510k
  3. Traditional 510k

Special 510k submissions

The first type is a special 510k submission. The FDA target timeline for a special 510k is 30 days, but you can only submit a Special 510k for a modification of your own device that already has a 510k issued. In addition, a Special 510k is only possible if the device modification requires a single technical discipline to review the change. For example, changes to software and materials requires a review of software validation and biocompatibility. Therefore, two reviewer specialists must coordinate their efforts and the review cannot be completed in 30 days. In this case an abbreviated or traditional 510k must be submitted instead.

Abbreviated 510k submissions

The second type of 510k submission is an abbreviated 510k. The FDA target timeline for review is 60 days. If there is a recognized standard specific to the type of device you are submitting, or the FDA has issued a guidance document addressing that device classification, then an abbreviated 510k submission is recommended. For example, a dental handpiece (i.e., product code is ) has a special controls guidance document that written specifically for dental handpieces and the guidance states that an abbreviated 510k submission is recommended. In addition, the FDA recognizes the latest standard for dental handpieces: ISO 14457:2012 (FDA Doc # 4-206).

Traditional 510k submissions

The third type of 510k submission is a traditional 510k submission. The FDA target timeline for review is 90 days. If you are submitting a 510k for a new device, or the device modifications require more than one functional area of expertise, then a special 510k is not an option. If there is no recognized standard for the device type and the FDA has not issued a special controls guidance for your device classification, then an abbreviated submission is also not an option. A traditional 510k submission is your only option in this case.

How frequently is an abbreviated 510k submission type used?

In September 2016 there were 260 510k SE decisions issued by the FDA. Here’s the breakdown by type:

  • Special 510k – 47 submissions = 18%
  • Abbreviated 510k – 8 submissions = 3%
  • Traditional 510k – 205 submissions = 79%

In general, I think it requires a little more effort to write clear and concise summaries for the various sections of an abbreviated 510k than it does for a traditional 510k. But if you can get your product to market a month quicker then it’s worth it.

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (0) →

Two New Live 510k Webinars – October 14, 2016

On October 14, 2016 I will be be presenting two new live 510k Webinars for the cost of $29.

Two Live 510k Webinars Two New Live 510k Webinars   October 14, 2016

Where to register for live 510k webinars

I hope you can participate in these live webinars, but all my webinars are recorded and you will receive a link to download the recording if you are registered for the live event. Have a great weekend!

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (0) →

Product Launch in 300 Days: 3x 100 Days – Design, 510k and QMS

This article explains the process and major milestones for completing a new medical device product launch in 300 days–including the product design, 510k clearance and quality system implementation.

Device Product Launch in 300 Days Product Launch in 300 Days: 3x 100 Days   Design, 510k and QMS

One of the most valuable pieces of information you can receive is a plan for your medical device product launch. Some companies contact me asking for help implementing their quality system. You should be implementing this step last if you are a start-up company. Some companies contact me asking for help preparing their 510k submission. But you need to seek help much earlier. The best time to contact an expert for help with your product launch is 300 days before you want to actually launch your product.

Three Major Milestones of a Product Launch

There are three major milestones that must be completed before a medical device product launch can proceed. First, you need to complete the design specifications for your device. Second, you need to complete the design verification and validation activities and summarize this testing in a 510k submission or another type of regulatory submission. Third, you need to implement a quality system that meets the requirements of 21 CFR 820 and/or ISO 13485:2016. Each of these three major tasks can be completed in less than 6 months, but with proper planning and motivation all three can be completed sequentially in less than one year for many products. In fact, completing all three milestones in 300 days is possible.

Break Your Product Launch into Phases

Whenever I plan a design project I break the overall product development into chunks that are easily understood, with measurable milestones and I establish a timeline that is aggressive but possible. The design process typically has six phases, but several of these phases are shorter than you really want and the overall process is too long for a single chunk. Therefore, I decided to break the six phases into 3 chunks: 1) product development, 2) verification and validation, and 3) regulatory clearance. The end of the first chunk is marked by a “design freeze” where your team will conduct a design review and approve the final design outputs before you begin verification and validation of your product design. The second chunk is marked by the submission of a 510k or some other regulatory submission. The third chunk is marked by the completion of your quality system and receipt of your 510k clearance letter from the FDA.

How Long Should Each Phase of the Product Launch Be?

In the past I would choose a timeline of approximately 3-4 months for each major phase of product launch. However, I have been learning a lot about goal setting and I now target 100 days for completion of most milestones. The reason is that 100 days is a time period over which most people can maintain their enthusiasm and motivation for completing a goal. If a goal takes longer than 100 days, then you should probably break down the goal into two or more smaller goals. If each of the three major phases of your product launch require 100 days, then you can complete the overall product development and product launch within 300 days. One of the tools I recommend for planning and tracking your progress toward a 100 day goal is: The Freedom Journal.

Product Launch Phase 1 – Your Design Plan

Your design plan should be the first thing you create. In order to create a design plan you will need to identify the regulatory pathway–including all of the testing that is required for verification and validation of your new medical device. This design plan should identify all the design reviews, all the verification and validation testing that is required and the regulatory approval process required prior to product launch.

Product Launch Phase 2 – Preparing Your 510k Submission

Once you have approved your design outputs during the “design freeze,” now you need to complete the verification and validation testing. During this phase you will need to make sure that you have identified all the testing, how many samples will be required for each test and you need to determine which steps of the testing process can be performed in parallel instead of performing tasks in series. For example, you will need to package and sterilize samples that are needed for biocompatibility testing, but electrical safety testing samples can be non-sterile. Therefore, the packaging validation must be completed prior to biocompatibility testing, but the electrical safety and EMC testing can be performed in parallel with both activities. For most products, the biocompatibility testing is one of the last tests that is typically completed, and the longest of these tests typically takes between 8-12 weeks. Therefore, 100 days is probably the fastest you can complete your verification and validation testing. During the entire verification and validation process you should be preparing your 510k submission. This will ensure that the submission is ready when the last test report is received–instead of frantically rushing to complete the submission in just a few weeks at the end of the process.

Product Launch Phase 3 – Implementing Your Quality System

Many companies start their quality system at the beginning of the design process. However, you should only implement two procedures prior to completing your 510k submission: 1) design controls, and 2) risk management. These two procedures are needed to properly document your design history file (DHF), and it is much harder to document your DHF after the design is completed. The balance of the procedures can be implemented in about 100 days, while your 510k submission should take between 90 and 180 days to receive clearance from the FDA. Therefore, you should be able to complete the quality system implementation prior to receipt of your 510k clearance letter.

“Rinse and Repeat” for Your Next Product Launch

Once your have completed your product launch, you should review the post-market surveillance of from your customers during the first 90 days. I like to call this the 100-day review. One-hundred days after the first product launch is the perfect time to conduct your first management review meeting. You should have your first internal audit completed during the first 100 days and you should have a lot of great feedback from customers during the first 90 days of product use. Therefore, top management can review the customer feedback, internal audit results and progress toward other quality objectives in order to identify improvement action items needed. These improvements may be quality system improvements and/or product improvements. One of the outputs of your first management review meeting should also be identification of your next product development.

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (0) →

ecopy: Hidden System Files Created by Windows 10 Update

This article explains how to fix a 510k submission ecopy on a USB flash drive–including how to debug problems created by the most recent Microsoft Windows 10 Update.

ecopy replacement for 510k submission 1024x422 ecopy: Hidden System Files Created by Windows 10 Update

The above picture is a USB flash drive with a replacement ecopy for a recent 510k submission I worked on. A couple of weeks ago, one of these little USB flash drives and the Microsoft Corporation conspired to create one of the most creative riddles I have ever solved in my entire life.

How do you delete a file you can see?

Not just any old hidden file, but a hidden system file called: “IndexerVolumeGuid.”

ecopy with System Volume Information Folder

IndexerVolumeGuid is a special system file that was on my brand new USB flash drive in the System Volume Information Folder. This file keeps an index of the files in the System Volume Information Folder. Your computer can use that index to recover accidentally deleted information. Normally this is a useful and desirable feature, but I purchased my brand new USB flash drive to send an ecopy 510k submission to the FDA Document Center. Unfortunately, the FDA Document Center can not accept system files. The problem was that I couldn’t see the files, because they are hidden.

How can you delete a file you can’t see?

I had a software problem, and the process used to fix software problems is called debugging.

Debugging Windows Software Updates

There is a specific position that you should be in when you are trying to debug a software problem. First, you need to be sitting down and hunched over your computer. Second you need to rest your forehead in your hand, sigh heavily and maybe even moan softly from time to time. Personally I prefer to curse the genius programmers at Microsoft and repeat my mantra of “I can’t believe this. It’s ridiculous.” You really know you are concentrating properly if the vein in your forehead is throbbing so much that other people can see it throbbing through your hand.

The most valuable tool for debugging software problems with Windows is Windows Help. It’s an on-line manual that has the answers to every conceivable question you can ask about Windows. The only time it’s really failed to be helpful is when I’m trying to connect to the internet. The “on-line” nature of Windows Help limits its usefulness in solving problems with internet connections for some reason.

Finding Hidden System Files

I typed into Windows Help, “Show hidden system files.” After a 10 minutes of reading I learned that the default setting for Windows Explorer is to hide system files, and bad things can happen if you unhide those files. I also learned that you can change the default setting by entering the Windows Control Panel, and then clicking on “Appearance and Personalization.” Finally, you click on “File Explorer Options,” click on “View” and then scroll through about 50 possible configuration options until you see the setting for “Hide Protected Operating System Files.” Then you deselect this option–despite the recommendation to keep these files hidden.

Finding the Control Panel

Next I typed into Windows Help, “How to find Windows Control Panel.” After another 10 minutes of reading I learned about a secret key stroke that pulls up a secret, black menu (Windows Key + “X” Key). On that menu is the Windows Control Panel. Of course there are about 20 different ways to reach the Windows Control Panel, but this secret key stroke is by far the coolest method.

I followed the instructions from Windows Help and finally I could see the hidden system folder, but I couldn’t delete it.

Next I tried formatting the USB drive. That worked, until I pulled the USB drive out and inserted it again. Windows has a cool new feature that automatically creates a hidden system folder on your USB drive–even if you don’t want one.

Disable Removable Drive Indexing

Windows Help again to the rescue. I learned that I needed to disable the removable drive indexing feature. In order to do that I needed to use Group Policy Editor, which I didn’t have. Windows Help told me that I could use the Windows Registry Editor or “regedit” program instead if I was unfortunate enough to be using something other than Windows XP. Next Windows Help instructed me to open a folder called Windows Search. Windows Search was a folder found 7-levels deep in the registry of the computer, but it seemed to be missing from my computer. Again, Windows Help instructed me on how to create a Windows Search Folder and add a file called “DisableRemovableDriveIndexing”. Then I only needed to change the settings from a “0” to a “1” and reboot my computer.

Finally, 2 hours later my USB drive no longer had a hidden system file on it and my computer would no longer create one automatically–until the next Windows update, which occurred a week later.

Other Resources

Last week I recorded a live webinar on “510k Lessons Learned.” If you are interested in specific guidance related to ecopy, you can also review the following FDA guidance documents:

  • ecopy Guidance – FDA Guidance document revised 12/3/2015; ecopy Program for Medical Device Submissions
  • ecopies Validation Module (a voluntary tool that verifies the format of an ecopy you have already developed on your local drive)

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (1) →

Special Controls Guidance Document – Content and Format

This article explains the content and format of a special controls guidance document issued for Class 2 medical devices regulated by the CDRH division of the US FDA.

Searching Guidance Documents Special Controls Guidance Document   Content and Format

There are many differences between Class 1 and Class 2 medical devices regulated by the FDA, but one of the primary differences is that many (not all) Class 2 medical devices have a special controls guidance document. Class 1 devices only have “general controls.” These “special” guidance documents can be found on the FDA website by searching the guidance document database. The title of each guidance document typically begins with “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document.” The middle of each title specifies the device type, and the end of the title states, “- Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff.” However, there are many exceptions.

Status of a Special Controls Guidance Document

A guidance document may be a final guidance or a draft guidance. Only the final guidance is considered official, however, draft guidance often indicate what the FDAs current thinking is on a topic. Draft guidance documents sometimes take years before they are approved as a final guidance. Sometimes the draft is so controversial that it will even be withdrawn. The FDA also publishes a list each year of planned guidance documents for the next fiscal year. Some of the final versions of special controls guidance documents were written in the 1990’s, but these documents remain the current final guidance until a new final guidance is approved. Often there is no urgent need to update a guidance document, because there are one or more active ISO Standards specific to the product classification and the standard(s) is recognized by the FDA.

Outline of a Recent Special Controls Guidance Document

Here is the general outline that is currently being used by the FDA for a special control guidance document for Class 2 devices:

  1. Introduction
  2. Topic – Background
  3. Pre-Market Notification – Background
  4. Scope
  5. Risks to Health
  6. Specific Device Description Requirements
  7. Performance Studies
  8. Device Specific Labeling
  9. References

Each product classification has the potential for slightly different requirements due to the differences in types of devices. For example, in vitro diagnostic products do not have animal studies and typically have human clinical study requirements for the performance section of the guidance document. However, an implant is more likely to have details about the materials of construction, biocompatibility and sterilization.

Searching the Guidance Database

There are 8 fields that are searchable for the guidance database.

  1. Product
  2. Date Issued
  3. FDA Organization
  4. Document Type
  5. Subject
  6. Draft or Final
  7. Open for Comment
  8. Comment Closing Date on Draft

For a De Novo application, I sometimes need to create a proposed draft special controls guidance. For this activity, I prefer to find a representative template. In order to do this, I will typically use four of these search fields. First, I narrow the product field to “medical devices” and the FDA organization to “CDRH.” Second, I select “guidance documents” for the document type. Finally, I select “premarket” for the subject and “final.” This narrows the list to 374 documents. Not all of the 374 documents are specific to a product classification, because some of these documents cover more general premarket issues such as risks of wireless telemetry.

You can further narrow your search by adding a word or words to the keyword search field. Therefore, if you are looking for a specific guidance you can find it very quickly.

Format of Special Controls Guidance Documents

If you submit a proposed draft guidance to the FDA (anyone can do this), there is no specific required format. However, I recommend copying the most recent format used by the FDA in order to minimize the amount of work required by the FDA for modifying the guidance prior to publishing your guidance as a draft. You also do not need to include all the sections of a guidance. Some of the guidance documents only update certain sections where technological characteristics have recently changed significantly. Most importantly, if you have a strong reason for deviating from what the FDA has always done–do it. The format of guidance documents has changed since the 90’s and will continue to do so.

Additional Resources

If you are preparing a premarket notification (i.e., 510k submission), you might have more questions than just guidance document availability. You might be interested in purchasing “How to Prepare Your 510k in 100 Days” or the on-line 510k Course or one of our Live 510k Workshops.

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (0) →

De Novo Application: The beginning of a new device product class

This article explains the FDA’s De Novo application process for regulatory clearance of medical devices that do not meet the requirements of a 510k submission.

De Novo Pathway 300x169 De Novo Application: The beginning of a new device product class
De Novo Application:
The beginning of a new device product class

The best regulatory experts plan regulatory submissions months before the performance testing is completed, and often the strategic regulatory pathway is determined before the design of the device even begins. If your design team is developing an innovative technology, you may have difficulty finding a predicate device that is substantially equivalent to your device. If you have not completed a De Novo application before, where do you start?

History of the De Novo Application

Historically, a De Novo application required that your device be submitted through the 510k process first. If the FDA determined that your device was not substantially equivalent to the predicate you chose, then you received a “Not Substantially Equivalent” (NSE) letter from the FDA. Once you receive an NSE letter, you have three options: 1) select a different predicate and re-submit, 2) re-submit the device through the Pre-Market Approval (PMA) process, or 3) submit the device through the De Novo application process. You were not allowed to submit a De Novo application until you received an NSE letter.

The De Novo application process was revised on July 9, 2012 to allow manufacturers to submit a De Novo application without a preceding 510k submission. This was done because there are many products that are technologically equivalent to a predicate device, but the indications for use are quite different. For example, many in vitro diagnostic (IVD) products are indicated for diagnosis of new viruses, but the device uses technology equivalent to another IVD product the manufacturer already makes. For this reason, most of the first 100+ De Novo application approvals were for IVD products.

De Novo Application Draft Guidance Document

The De Novo application process does not have an approved final guidance document. For now, there is only a draft guidance document.

Pre-Sub Meetings Prior to a De Novo Application

Pre-sub meetings are generally recommended by the FDA for manufacturers that intend to submit a De Novo application without a prior 510k submission and subsequent NSE letter. If the device is a Class II, a  pre-sub meeting allows the manufacturer to request input from the FDA,  regarding performance testing and special controls. The draft De Novo guidance document specifically recommends following the existing content guidelines for a pre-sub meeting request, but the guidance also recommends including the following elements in the pre-sub meeting request:

  • Proposed product classification (i.e., Class I, Class II exempt, or Class II)
  • Details of efforts previously taken in order to identify a predicate
  • Risks and Risk/Benefit Analysis
  • Proposed Performance Testing and/or Special Controls

De Novo Applications for Class I and Class II Exempt Devices

Most manufacturers mistakenly assume that De Novo applications are only for devices that are Class II and will require a 510k submission for future product submissions in the same classification. However, the regulations require that the application cover letter include both a “Classification Summary” and a “Classification Recommendation.” The recommendation for a classification may be for Class I, Class II exempt or Class II non-exempt. If you recommend that the FDA classify the device as Class II exempt, then the recommendation must include a justification for why premarket notification is not required.

Regardless of which classification is recommended, the justification for classification needs to be based upon a risk/benefit analysis. Class I and Class II exempt classifications are likely to be recommended more in the future for many of the standalone software products that are being developed by manufacturers, because those software devices generally have a low risk. Existing product classifications may be used, but if the indications for use are not substantially equivalent to a predicate the manufacturers will submit a 510k and receive NSE letters. For the companies that are claiming substantial equivalence to products that already have a product classification that is exempt from premarket notification, manufacturers will continue to register and list products under existing classification codes until the FDA intervenes–even if the indications for use are not equivalent.

How to Modify Your 510k Templates

Twenty sections comprise a 510k submission, but regulatory experts typically use templates for each section in order to streamline the process of preparing a new device submission. For a De Novo application, a large percentage of the sections required for a 510k submission are the same. The draft guidance identifies one unique section to a De Novo application: the cover letter (i.e., Attachment II in the De Novo guidance). However, there are three sections of a 510k submission that also need to be eliminated for a De Novo application:

  1. Section 1: User Fee Cover Sheet, because De Novo applications do not require a user fee
  2. Section 5: 510k Summary or 510k Statement is not required, because this is not a 510k submission
  3. Section 12: Substantial Equivalence Comparison, because De Novo applications do not claim equivalence to a predicate

New De Novo Application Webinar

Companies developing devices with truly innovative technologies frequently have difficulty identifying suitable predicate devices. The best regulatory experts plan in advance for these regulatory submissions by honing their knowledge of the De Novo application process. On Thursday, January 28th I’m sharing my own tips and templates for De Novo applications. Click here to learn more about the webinar.

Posted in: 510(k)

Leave a Comment (1) →

Three (3) important technical file and 510k submission differences

This article summarizes the three (3) important technical file and 510k submission differences: 1) the risk management file, 2) the clinical evaluation report, and 3) the post-market clinical follow-up report.

3 different apples Three (3) important technical file and 510k submission differences

3 important technical file and 510k submission differences

ISO 14971 requires a risk management file whether you are selling a medical device in the EU or the USA, but the US FDA doesn’t require that you submit a risk management file as part of the 510k submission. If you design and develop a medical device with software, you must submit a risk analysis if the software has a moderate level of concern or higher. However, the risk analysis is only a small portion of a risk management file.

Only 10-15% of 510k submissions require clinical studies, but 100% of medical devices with CE Marking require a clinical evaluation report (CER) as an essential requirement in the technical file. The clinical evaluation report (CER) is essential requirement (ER) 6a in Annex I of the Medical Device Directive (MDD). Even class 1 devices that are non-sterile and have no measuring function require a clinical evaluation report (CER). Yes, even adhesive tape with a CE Mark requires a clinical evaluation report in the technical file.

Annex X, 1.1c of the Medical Device Directive (MDD) requires that medical device manufacturers perform a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study or provide a justification for not conducting a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study. In the past, companies attempted to claim that their device is equivalent to other medical devices and therefore a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study is not required. However, in January 2012 a guidance document (MEDDEV 2.12/2) was published to provide guidance regarding when a PMCF study needs to be conducted. This guidance makes it clear that PMCF studies are required for many devices–regardless of equivalence to other devices already on the market.

Risk management file for technical file and 510k submission

The FDA only requires documentation of risk management in a 510k submission if the product contains software and the risk is at least a “moderate concern.” Even though you are required to perform risk analysis, a knee implant would not require submission of the risk analysis with the 510k. If a product is already 510k cleared, you may be surprised to receive audit nonconformities related to your risk management documentation for CE Marking. The most common deficiencies with a risk management file are:

  1. compliant with ISO 14971:2007 instead of EN ISO 14971:2012
  2. reduction of risks as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP) instead of reducing risks as far as possible (AFAP)
  3. reducing risks by notifying users and patients of residual risks in the IFU
  4. only addressing unacceptable risks with risk controls instead of all risks–including negligible risks

If you are looking for a risk management procedure, please click here. You might also be interested in my previous blog about preparing a risk management file.

Clinical evaluation report (CER) for technical file and 510k submission

The FDA does not require a clinical evaluation report (CER), and up until 2010 only some CE Marked products were required to provide a clinical evaluation report (CER). In 2010 the Medical Device Directive (MDD) was revised and now a clinical evaluation report (CER) is a general requirement for all medical devices (i.e., Essential Requirement 6a). This requirement can be met by performing a clinical study or by performing a literature review. Since 510k devices only require a clinical study 10-15% of the time, it is unusual for European Class 1, Class IIa and Class IIb devices to have clinical studies. This also means that very few clinical studies are identified in literature reviews of these low and medium risk devices.

The most common problem with the clinical evaluation reports (CERs) is that the manufacturer did not use a pre-approved protocol for the literature search. Other common problems include an absence of documented qualifications for the person performing the clinical evaluation and failure to include a copy of the articles reviewed in the clinical evaluation report (CER). These requirements are outlined in MEDDEV 2.7/1, but the amount of work required to perform a clinical evaluation that meets these requirements can take 80 hours to complete.

If you are looking for a procedure and literature search protocol for preparing a clinical evaluation report (CER), please click here. You might also be interested in my previous blog about preparing a clinical evaluation report (CER).

Post-Market Surveillance (PMS) & Post-Market Clinical Follow-up (PMCF) Studies for technical file and 510k submission

Post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) is only required for the highest risk devices by the FDA. For CE Marking, however, all product families are required to have evidence of post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) studies or a justification for why post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) is not required. The biggest mistake I see is that manufacturers refer to their post-market surveillance (PMS) procedure as the post-market surveillance (PMS) plan for their product family, and they say that they do not need to perform post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study because the device is substantially equivalent to several other devices on the market.

Manufacturers need to have a post-market surveillance (PMS) plan that is specific to a product or family of products. The post-market surveillance (PMS) procedure needs to be updated to identify the frequency and product-specific nature of post-market surveillance (PMS) for each product family or a separate document needs to be created for each product family. For devices that are high-risk, implantable or devices that have innovative characteristics the manufacturer will need to perform some post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) studies. Even products with clinical studies might require post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF), because changes to the device, accessories and range of sizes may not be covered by the clinical studies. MEDDEV 2.12/2 provides guidance on the requirements for post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) studies, but most companies manufacturing moderate risk devices do not have experience obtaining patient consent to access medical records in order to collect post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) data–such as postoperative imaging.

Procedures & Webinars

If you are looking for a procedure for post-market surveillance (PMS), please click here. If you are interested in learning more about post-market surveillance and post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) studies, we also have a webinar on this topic.

Posted in: 510(k), CE Marking

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 3 123
Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers:

Simple Share Buttons
Simple Share Buttons