The Triage program for 510(k) submissions is reviewed. The goal of this FDA approval process program is to reduce review time from 90 to 30 days.
Thursday, Congress voted 96 to 1 for a bill to increase FDA user fees. The rationale is that the FDA needs more funding in order to be strong enough to properly regulate foods, drugs and medical devices. One of the commitments linked with this new funding is to shorten the review of 510(k) submissions. To this end, OIVD has created a new program called “Triage.” The goal of this program is to accelerate the review of certain traditional 510(k) submissions to 30 days instead of 90 days.
In theory, this pilot program will help some companies get their 510(k) clearance letter faster, but simultaneously, the FDA will be able to concentrate resources on high-risk 510(k) submissions. This entire strategy seems to be the opposite of triage. Triage involves sorting sick patients into three categories:
1) Those who are likely to live, regardless of what care they receive
2) Those who are likely to die, regardless of what care they receive
3) Those for whom immediate care might make a positive difference in their outcome
If we apply the triage analogy to 510(k) submissions, we see three categories:
1) 510(k) submissions that are likely to be approved, regardless of how much time the FDA spends
2) 510(k) submissions that are likely to be rejected, regardless of how much time the FDA spends
3) 510(k) submissions whose approval or rejection is not clear, but the FDA’s earlier involvement in the design and development process would substantially improve review time.
The FDA’s “triage” program is intended to demonstrate improvement in the time required to approve medical devices by sorting submissions into two groups: group #1 above and group # 2/3 from above. This will make the numbers look good, but the FDA should be spending even less time on #2 than it spends on the #1 category of submissions. The FDA should also get involved in group #3 submissions much earlier.
FDA Approval Process
The types of submissions that need more FDA reviewer time are devices that are higher in risk, and where special controls guidance documents and/or ISO Standards have not already been established for performance and safety testing criteria (i.e., – Category #3 above). In these cases, when a company tries to obtain some feedback from the FDA, they are asked to request a pre-IDE meeting. The company will not be necessarily performing a clinical trial, but this is the only vehicle the FDA has for justifying the time it spends providing feedback on proposed verification and validation testing plans. The FDA needs to develop a new model that is ideally suited for 510(k) products where guidance and Standards do not exist. This would also have the effect of reducing the number of “Not Substantially Equivalent” (NSE) letters the FDA issues.
If a company is developing a device that already has an applicable special controls document or ISO Standard, then the 510(k) pathway should be well-defined without the FDA’s help. Unfortunately, there is no easy mechanism for ensuring compliance with these external standards. This type of submission would benefit from software-controlled submissions and/or pre-screening of submissions by third-party reviewers. The Turbo 510(k) software tool could lend itself to software controlled submissions, but proliferation of the Turbo 510(k) has been limited.
Submitting a 510(k)
If a company does not submit a 510(k) with all the required elements of a guidance document, the submission should not be processed. Implementation of validated software tools for each 3-letter product code would prevent incomplete submissions. At the very least, companies should be required to provide a rationale for any sections of a submission that are not applicable.
One example of a possible software solution is currently used by third-party auditors at BSI. BSI uses a software tool that will not allow the auditor to generate a final report unless all the required elements have been completed. The FDA could use the existing screening checklist and convert this into a similar “SmartForm.” If the submission does not have all the required elements of the checklist, the submission form could not be generated from the software. This forces the task of pre-screening reviews back upon the submitter with the aid of a validated software tool.
The biggest shortfall of the Triage program is the target product types. IVD devices are quite different from other device types. Each IVD has unique chemistry, there are a limited number of Guidance documents for IVDs and IVD submissions represent only 10-20% of all submissions. Orthopedic, cardiovascular, general/plastic surgery, and radiology devices each represent more than 10% of the submissions, and collectively they represent half of the submissions. These types of devices also have both special controls documents and ISO Standards defining the design inputs for design verification. Therefore, these four device types would be a better choice for a pilot program to expedite reviews.