Date post: | 20-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Health & Medicine |
Upload: | joe-hage |
View: | 193 times |
Download: | 1 times |
2
Introductions
Rob Packard – Founder/President, Medical Device Academy, Inc.
Carrie M. Kuehn, M.P.H., RAC – Sr. Managing Scientist, Biomedical Engineering Practice,
Exponent
Jorge Ochoa, Ph.D., P.E. – Principal, Biomedical Engineering Practice, Exponent
3
FDA’s Refuse to Accept Policy
FDA criteria for assessing whether a 510(k) meets minimum requirements for substantive review
Final Guidance issued December 31, 2012
Purpose:
– Focus FDA resources on review of complete 510(k)s
– Enhance consistency of acceptance decisions
– Assess completeness, not quality, of submission
FDA will respond within 15 days of receipt
4
Administrative vs. Substantive Review
Administrative
Is it a device?
Are MDUFA fees paid?
Is the 510(k) the right submission?
Presence or absence of required 510(k) components
Results in RTA or Substantive Review
Substantive
Quality of 510(k) components
Adequacy of submission
SE determination
Additional information requests
Interactive review
Results in Binding Determination of SE
“No evaluation of adequacy of content or rationale”
- Marjorie Shulman, Director 510(k) Staff, FDA
6
FDA’s 2013 Annual 510(k) Performance
2,965 510(k)’s received in 2013
1,197 Accepted
1,715 Refuse to Accept
Rate of Submissions Not Accepted
58%
Quarterly Meeting on MDUFA III (FY 2013-2017) Performance. January 29, 2014
7
Reported Reasons for Refusal
Failure to state whether a condom was patient contacting
Failure to explain how following the Specials Control Guidance Document for labeling met the labeling requirements under 21 CFR §807.87
510(k) Summary formatting comments
Failure to comply with a Draft Guidance document
Failure to indicate whether a vinyl glove contained software or met the electrical safety requirements
Substantive questions regarding shelf-life and other content that should be the subject of review not RTA
Typos, misprints, duplicate pages, etc.
FDA Law Blog. February 26, 2014
8
More Detail Needed than Ever Before…
“We didn’t need to include that last time.”
“But that’s not applicable.”
“Do we need to provide that? It should be obvious.”
10
Industry Report Card:
What the FDA Saw* 2001 - 2010
Increase in average number of review cycles from 2001 to 2010
Increase in industry time to react to questions and deficiencies
83% of AI letters had at least one quality related deficiency
– Inconsistencies in the submission
– Missing admin requirements
Old RTA checklist very rarely used
– Not descriptive enough
– No effect on the review clock *Marjorie Shulman, Director 510(k) Staff, FDA. FDLI 2013
11
What RTA Means to Industry
Careful what you ask for…
– Reduce number of review cycles and total time to final decision = you get ONE shot at it
New checklist criteria
– Compilation of regulations, statutes, guidance, review practices = addition, not intersection
– Objective tool to understand key components of complete submission = its important to us, so its important to you
– Only evaluating presence, not adequacy, in principle
Efficient use of reviewer resources = more work on your part
12
How Are NPD Projects Affected?
If rejected: FDA clock stops and resets to day 0 when RTA response received
RTA review is not an interactive process
Unlimited number of RTA cycles
Concept of Substantive Interaction (SI)
Missed MDUFA Decision (MMD) communication
Schedules and resources will be influenced.
Effect can be cumulative
13
Training Your Resources
Make the 510(k) an integral part of your NPD work breakdown structure
– All you need for your RTA checklist and 510(k) should be in your DHF and project manager’s notebook
Ensure that all NPD team members and functions are conversant in regulatory terminology and concepts
Train personnel interacting directly with FDA on effective communication skills
– Substantive Interaction (SI) decision
– Interactive Review (IR) process
14
Risk for RTA Letter
High RTA Risk
11 – Device Description
12 – Substantial Equivalence
Moderate RTA Risk
5 – 510(k) Summary or 510(k) Statement
9 – DCs & Summary Reports
10 – Executive Summary
13 – Proposed Labeling
14 – Sterilization and Shelf Life
15 – Biocompatibility
16 – Software
17 – Electromagnetic Compatibility & Electrical Safety
18, 19, & 20 – Performance Testing (Bench, Animal, Clinical)
Low RTA Risk
1 – Medical Device User Fee cover Sheet
2 – CDRH Premarket Review submission Cover Sheet
3 – 510(k) Cover Letter
4 – Indications for Use Statement
6 – Truthful and Accuracy Statement
7 – Class III Summary & Certification
8 – Financial Certification or Disclosure Statement
15
Volume 9 – Declaration of Conformity (Part A)
FDA Form 3654 (http://bit.ly/Form-FDA-3654)
– Completed for all listed standards
– If two revisions are shown, only the most recent
Recommend a Summary Document
– List all Form 3654s
– List corresponding reports for each 3654
Device-specific guidance and/or special controls
– Create a table showing how each requirement is met
16
Volume 12 – Substantial Equivalence (Part C)
Comparison with Predicate Device(s)
Tabular Format
Contents Include Similarities AND Differences
– Indications for use & Patient population
– Technology
– Mode of Action & Functionality
– Materials
– Size
Safety & Efficacy
http://bit.ly/Substantial-Equiv-Guidance
17
Identifying A Predicate Device
513(g) Submission (http://bit.ly/513g-guidance)
Pre-Submission Meeting (http://bit.ly/FDA-Pre-Sub)
Critical Points of Comparison
– Intended Use & Patient Population
– Technology
– Mode of Action & Functionality
18
Volume 11 – Device Description (Part B)
Device-specific guidance and/or special controls
Consistent with labeling
Principle of operation and mechanism of action
Conditions of use
Each device within submission
Drawings and schematics
Components and accessories—including 510(k)s
19
Other Parts of RTA Checklist
Part D – Labeling (Device Specific?)
Part E – Sterilization (Novel or Non-traditional Methods?)
Part F – Shelf-Life
Part G – Biocompatibility
Part H – Software (Level of Concern & Risk Analysis)
Part I – EMC & Electrical Safety (IEC 60601-1 3rd Ed. Amd 1)
Part J – Performance Data (Special Controls?)
Part K – Performance Characteristics (IVDs only)