regulatory and quality system professionals | 919.313.3960
Accessory or Component and the FDA – The Fine Line Between Them

Accessory or Component and the FDA – The Fine Line Between Them

Determining if your product or innovation should be considered a component or an accessory is a critical early-life cycle inflection point. In fact, the distinction between the two terms has long been the subject of debate and interpretation. In August 2017, the FDA began a new effort to classify a “list of [medical device] accessories that the Agency believes are suitable for distinct classification into class I.”  However, this effort lead to even more questions and less understanding between the classification designations and the actual device. Let’s try to break this down to help with the clarification process: What does the FDA consider an accessory versus a component?An accessory is intended to support, supplement, and/or augment the performance of one or more devices, often called “parent devices”. It is considered a finished device—meaning it is ready for use or capable of functioning.A component (in 21CFR 820.3) is defined as “…any raw material, substance, piece, part, software, firmware, labeling or assembly which is intended to be included as part of the finished, packaged and labeled device.” In other words, it would serve no direct medical purpose by itself, in the form that you deliver, and you are not selling directly to patients/end users/health care providers.21CFR 807.65(a) explicitly exempts “a manufacturer of raw materials or components to be used in the manufacture or assembly of a device…”  This means the parts or sub-components that go into make a device are exempt from Registration. The creator of the final device bears the burden of Registration. Let’s talk about some possible scenarios where this designation is important. Company A makes sensors that are incorporated into a finished blood...
FDA Announces New Policy for Accepting Consensus Standards for Medical Devices

FDA Announces New Policy for Accepting Consensus Standards for Medical Devices

FDA Streamlines Process for Accepting Consensus Standards We are seeing the impact of the 21st Century Cures Act yet again with FDA’s clarification on how they will process requests for recognition of consensus standards. With this new policy, FDA has streamlined the process that allows medical device manufacturers to submit a request to the FDA for recognition of a standard that has been established by a nationally or internationally recognized standard organization. What Are Recognized Consensus Standards A recognized consensus standard is a national or international standard that FDA has evaluated and recognized for use in satisfying a regulatory requirement and for which FDA has published a notice in the Federal Register. Many consensus standards address aspects of safety and effectiveness that are relevant to medical devices. When a medical device manufacturer is submitting a premarket application, such as a 510(k), Investigation Device Exemptions application (IDE) or a Premarket Approval application (PMA), it must demonstrate to CDRH (Center for Devices and Radiological Health) that their device is safe and effective. Applicants may be able to demonstrate safety and effectiveness by conformance to FDA-recognized consensus standards. When planning performance and safety testing, manufacturers should review the list of FDA-recognized standards to determine if the standard they are considering is listed. FDA recommends that plans to conform to particular standards be discussed during pre-submission meetings. If testing has already been conducted to a standard not recognized by the FDA but acceptable in another market, a request for recognition will need to be submitted to FDA. If testing has already been conducted to a past version of a standard that the FDA...
FDA Issues New List of 510(k) Exempt Medical Devices

FDA Issues New List of 510(k) Exempt Medical Devices

New Class II 510(k) Exempt Medical Devices As part of the FDA’s movement to decrease regulatory burdens on the medical device industry, the agency published a list of more than 337 Class II product codes of 510(k) exempt medical devices (see the FDA’s Federal Register notice). The FDA has determined that assurance of safety and effectiveness of these devices can be provided by other regulatory controls. By issuing exempt status for these devices, the FDA can redirect resources that would have been spent reviewing these submissions to more significant public health issues. In March of this year, the FDA published a draft of their proposed Class II devices to be exempted in accordance with the 21st Century Cures Act. FDA is now required to publish a list of Class II devices that no longer require premarket notification, also known as 510(k) exempt medical devices, at least once every five years. 93 product codes are now 510(k) exempt subject to partial exemption limitation in addition to general limitations. So, it will be important for manufacturers to confirm if their device is indeed exempt. For example, FDA exempted devices regulated under product code DHB (Radioallergosorbent immunological test system), but they do not believe all products with the product code DHB meet the partial exemption limitation. Therefore, you are still required to file a 510(k) submission if your device falls under product code DHB and is not identified on the list. Pending 510(k) Submissions Medical device manufacturers with pending 510(k) submissions that are now on the list of exempted devices are directed to withdraw their submission. This is great news for these...

How the 21st Century Cures Act Impacts Medical Device Software

There has been a lot of discussion surrounding medical device software and how it should be regulated. Concern about software of this nature will continue to rise to the forefront of conversations because there will be an increasing number of these products in the marketplace. The 21st Century Cures Act specifically addresses which types of medical device software will be exempt from regulation. Section 3060, Clarifying Medical Software Regulation, identifies five categories of medical software that will not be regulated as medical devices by the FDA due to their potential low level of risk to patients. The software categories that may be excluded from device regulation include: Administrative & Operational Software: that provides administrative support of a healthcare facility, such as that for appointment scheduling, health benefit eligibility and processing financial records. While this software is included in the provision, it was not considered a medical device to begin with. Wellness Apps: for maintaining or encouraging a healthy lifestyle that is unrelated to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or treatment of a disease or condition. This is consistent with FDA’s General Wellness and Mobile Medical Applications guidance documents. Electronic Patient Record Software: provided that it is only intended to transfer, store, convert formats or display the equivalent of a medical chart. There are some caveats to this exception, however: Records must be created, stored, transferred or reviewed by healthcare professionals; Records must be part of health information technology certified under section 3001(c)(5) of the Public Health Service Act; and The software must not be intended to interpret or analyze patient data or images for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, prevention, or...
Obama Signs the 21st Century Cures Act into Law

Obama Signs the 21st Century Cures Act into Law

Last night, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act into law. Most of what people will be hearing from the media will be focused on the Act’s support of cancer research, mental health policies, brain research to tackle diseases like Alzheimer’s and the funding allocated for these initiatives. However, the 996-page bill also includes major changes that impact the way the FDA regulates drugs, devices and biologics. Those who have spoken out against the Cures Act have done so out of fear of a weakened system that would allow for less rigorous examination of products before they go to market. While there are sections of the act that appear to streamline submission and review processes, until the FDA develops the necessary guidances based on their interpretation of the requirements, the industry will not know what to expect. The best way to approach these pending changes is to become familiar with the areas that might impact your device. The following summarizes provisions relevant to medical device companies: Sec. 3001 Patient Experience Data Under the Cures Act, FDA would be required to include a statement regarding any patient experience data that was used at the time of a drug’s approval. The bill defines patient experience data as “data collected by any persons (including patients, family members and caregivers of patients, patient advocacy organizations, disease research foundations, researchers, and drug manufacturers).” While this section specifically refers to drugs, this may come into play for combination products, as well. This requirement, as well as section 3002, is one to watch to determine if it affects your product commercialization goals. Sec. 3033 Accelerated...
FDA Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) is on the Horizon

FDA Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) is on the Horizon

How Do Laboratory Developed Tests Impact Your Business? The Office of Public Health Strategy and Analysis recently issued a report that reviewed 20 products that relied on Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) to determine whether a lack of oversight may have caused actual harm to patients or not. Once, LDTs were relatively simple tests that may not have warranted regulatory compliance. However, these tests are playing an increasingly more important role in healthcare and have become significantly more complex. The concern is that these tests may present with inaccuracies that place patients at what would be considered otherwise avoidable risk. The report found that these 20 products, in fact, may have caused actual harm to patients. In some cases, patients were told they have conditions they do not really have, due to false-positive tests. This led to unnecessary distress and resulted in unneeded treatment. In other cases, the LTDs produced false-negative results, in which life-threatening diseases went undetected. These misdiagnosed patients failed to receive treatments. Additionally, some LTDs provided information with no relevance to the condition they were intended to be used for, and others were linked to treatments based on disproven scientific concepts. Not only do these situations cause harm to patients, but they are also costly to society.(1) The report found that FDA oversight of LTDs is needed to address the following: Lack of evidence supporting the clinical validity of tests Deficient adverse event reporting No premarket review of performance data Unsupported manufacturer claims Inadequate product labeling Lack of transparency Uneven playing field Threats to the scientific integrity of clinical trials No comprehensive listing of all LTDs being used...