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...
Regulating Medical Devices Shapes Industry for the Better

Regulating Medical Devices Shapes Industry for the Better

This article originally appeared in Business Worldwide magazine. It’s fashionable to be anti-regulation in business today. But sometimes regulation is central to how a sector operates. We talk to Rita King, CEO of MethodSense and Russ King, President of MethodSense about why regulating medical devices and biotech/pharma companies is so critical. Most devices and innovations need to go through a complex system of regulatory approval. In order to obtain market entry, some argue that regulatory agencies like the US-based Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are too zealous, preventing or delaying life-saving innovations from entering the market. Richard Williams, an affiliated scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, cites an example where three medical devices submitted for approval took nine years to process. He argues that it costs on average $24 million to manage FDA requirements. “A mid-1970s law,” he argues, “requires virtually every medical device—and improvements to existing devices—to endure a slow, expensive, uncertain approval process, ill-suited to 21st-century technology. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which grants such approval, has an ageing structure and culture that adds extra layers of discouragement to would-be innovators.” But what are the benefits of regulation, and how can pharma and tech companies manage the process of compliance more smoothly? MethodSense is a company that exists to assist companies with FDA and other regulatory agencies to obtain market entry for their medical device products. We talked to Rita King, CEO of MethodSense, and Russ King, President of MethodSense, about what they do and why regulation matters. What kinds of services do you provide as a company? “MethodSense’s consulting service approach is a little...
FDA Announces FY 2018 MDUFA Fees

FDA Announces FY 2018 MDUFA Fees

MDUFA Fee Increases and FDA Small Business Certification The FDA has recently announced the fee rates and procedures for medical device user fees for fiscal year 2018 in the Federal Register. Under the FD&C Act, as amended by the Medical Device User Fee Amendments of 2017 (MDUFA IV), FDA is authorized to collect user fees for certain medical device applications, submissions, reporting on class III devices and fees for establishments subject to registration. These fees are in effect from October 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018. 2018 MDUFA Fees FDA user fees have increased across all categories. This increase will substantially impact larger companies. Most FDA user fees increased 33%; however the standard application fee for a 510(k) submission rose 125% to $10,566. The increase in fees is a result of inflation adjustment plus any additional increase FDA feels is necessary to reach the inflation adjusted total revenue amount the agency has identified for the year. Application Type 2018 Standard Fees 2018 Small Business Fees 510(k) premarket notification submission $10,566 (+125%) $2,642 (+13%) 513(g) request for classification information $4,195 (+33%) $2,098 (+33%) Premarket application (PMA) $310,764 (+33%) $77, 691 (+33%) De novo classification request $93,229 (new) $23,307 (new) Annual fee for periodic reporting on a class III device $10,877 (+33%) $2,719 (+33%) Annual establishment registration $4,624 (+37%) $4,624 (+37%) Qualifying for Small Business User Fees At the same time that the FDA announced their 2018 fees, they also updated their guidance FY 2018 Medical Device User Fee Small Business Qualification and Certification. A business that is qualified as a “small business” is eligible for reduced user fees. A small...
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...
FDA to Create a Digital Health Unit

FDA to Create a Digital Health Unit

The FDA has announced that it is forming a digital health unit within the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The digital health unit will develop software and technical expertise to assist manufacturers with devices that incorporate digital health technologies, as well as assessing digital health improvements and monitoring and reporting on the digital health premarket review timelines. Digital health includes categories such as mobile health (mHealth), health information technology (IT), wearable devices, telehealth and telemedicine, and personalized medicine. The creation of this unit is part of the Medical Device User Fee Act (MDUFA). MDUFA is the program that authorizes FDA to collect user fees from medical device manufacturers in support of streamlining the regulatory approval process. Negotiations between FDA and the medical device industry regarding the fourth version of MDUFA are currently underway. As part of the negotiation process, FDA proposed to hire technical experts to staff the new digital health unit. In addition to MDUFA, the 21st Century Cures Act requires FDA to develop a framework for evaluating real world evidence. FDA envisions that the digital health unit will monitor and implement the use of real world evidence to support the regulatory approval process. FDA issued a draft guidance in July 2016, Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decision-Making for Medical Devices, that identifies how real world data will be evaluated to determine if it is sufficiently relevant and reliable enough to be used. While the FDA sees the digital health unit as a means of streamlining the regulatory approval process, it also recognizes it will require coordination with industry and other government agencies because digital health touches on...