Author: Nupur Srivastava, PhD
There has been a lot of discussion on the updated International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14971:2019, and experts agree that medical device manufacturers need to perform a gap analysis and create a cross-functional team to meet these risk management requirements.
Risk management plays a critical role in getting medical devices into the market, and ISO 14971:2019 “was designed to better align with medical device regulations around the world.” The global regulatory landscape has been very dynamic around the areas of risk management, as well as safety and performance.
Two experts shared insights during an interview with Medtech Insight. Jos Van Vroonhoven, convener of ISO Technical Committee 210, Joint Working Group 1 (TC210/JWG1) and a senior manager for standardization for device giant Philips Healthcare, and Don Powers, a member of ISO TC210/JWG1 and long-time industry expert, said that the third edition of ISO 14971 provides more precise guidance and greater detail in the application of risk management concepts.
These experts provided specific tips on how to transition ISO 14971:2019 into your device’s quality systems.
Since ISO 14971:2019 instructs manufacturers how to best put together risk management programs, this is a good time to review risk management procedures and perform Gap Assessments.
Create another team to evaluate residual risks. This group needs to form a cross-functional team of experts with application and clinical knowledge that can provide good judgment for the residual risk of the medical device.
The example provided explored the residual risk of x-ray equipment. In this case, the residual risk team might be comprised of individuals with expertise in the following areas.
The standards outlined in ISO 14971:2019, like benefit-risk analysis, are now in demand by global regulators.
The ISO 14971 standards were updated in 2019 in the United States and the European Union to conform to the higher expectation of identifying and mitigating risks associated with a medical device throughout its lifecycle.
In the US, FDA requires device manufacturers to align with ISO 14971:2019 by the end of the transition period December 25, 2022, after which time FDA will no longer accept the previous ISO 14971:2007 version.
In Europe, ISO 14971:2019 (EN version) aligns with the Medical Device Regulations (MDR) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) safety and performance requirements. Although it is not yet harmonized with these standards, ISO 14971:2019 is expected to become a Harmonized standard, which will make it state-of-the-art. The date of application for MDR (26 May 2021) and IVDR (26 May 2022) is quickly approaching.
Globally, ISO 14971:2019 is considered the international standard for risk management and is referenced, if not endorsed, by all other major markets that require the application of risk management including, Australia TGA, Brazil, Health Canada, and Japan MHLW.
Therefore, device manufacturers must begin to transition into compliance with the revised version of ISO 14971:2019 to align with global regulations.
For more information on Quality Management Systems (QMS) ISO 13485 standard, see our white paper: MedDev 2.7/1 Guideline: Equivalence and Risk/Benefit Profile
For updates on MDR and IVDR, see our previous posts:
The Deadline for Compliance with MDR 2017/745 is Extended to 26 May 2021: Changing and Challenging Dynamics
The Second Corrigendum of Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 Offers Manufacturers a 4-Year the Grace Period for Eligible Class I Medical Device
MDD or MDR? Medical Device Manufacturers Are Faced with a Big Decision Going Forward Under the MDR Extension
The Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In Vitro Device Regulation (IVDR) Mandate Manufacturers Have a Person Responsible for Regulatory Compliance (PPRC): Guidelines and Support
IVDR 2017/746 Implements Risk-Based Classification of IVDs that Focuses on Intended Use
Key Changes in the Regulatory Requirements for In Vitro Diagnostic Devices Marketed in the European Union Under IVDR 2017/746
The first edition of ISO 14971 was released in 2000 to assist manufacturers, regulatory bodies, and healthcare providers in managing the medical devices’ potential risks. This picture depicts the evolution of ISO 14971 from 2000 to 2019.
Get a copy of the slides from this webinar or click to watch the recording.
With the implementation of IVDR requirements, IVD manufacturers have been challenged to align their internal processes and systems to comply with these rigorous regulations. In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge uncovers what we have learned from our experience in writing MDR-compliant CERs, and how urgently applicable some of these key learnings are in preparing a robust Performance Evaluation Report (PER).
Who should watch this webinar?
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and regulatory writers who are tasked with the development, writing, review or approval of Performance Evaluation Reports for EU IVDR submission, or anyone interested in learning more about IVDR requirements for PERs.
Sign up for future webinars here.
Criterion Edge has the expertise and resources to do literature reviews for many types of documents. Ready for a free consult?
Author: Suzanne Broussard, PhD
FDA’s recently finalized modifications to the electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) system include the addition of new fields to harmonize with terminologies set by the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF). These changes are designed to “improve transparency and analysis of the MDR data contained in the public Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database” and are part of the FDA’s push for regulatory harmonization.
Device manufacturers now have until February 28, 2021 to use IMDRF codes instead of the retired Patient Problem Codes and Device Component Codes. The original production deployment date of September 7, 2020 was extended to give manufacturers a little more time to adapt to the changes.
The current eMDR reflect FDA’s updates to Form 3500A, which is used by medical device manufacturers, importers, distributors, and user facilities to report diverse events and other system enhancements.
To help manufacturers with a smooth transition to the newest eMDR format, the Center for Devices and Radiological health (CDRH) has created a downloadable file package to assist in implementing software for generating the HL-7ICSR XML for eDMR submissions. And updates on new and retired codes MDR Adverse Codes are easy to find.
The updated eMDR is one of many changes being implemented by FDA. Indeed, 2020 has been an active year for FDA as they work to harmonize across systems.
It takes a team of experts to implement all the regulatory documentations required to get and keep your medical device in compliance, especially ever changing and demanding US and European regulatory requirements.
Author: Suzanne Broussard, PhD
The FDA is moving forward with its commitment to strengthen and modernize the 510(k) program. The Safety and Performance Based Pathway is designed to provide a direct and transparent approach to demonstrating safety and effectiveness of low to moderate risk devices that can meet FDA-identified performance criteria to demonstrate substantial equivalence.
The first device specific guidance documents for Conventional Foley Catheters and Cutaneous Electrodes for Recording Purposes were released in August 2020. More recently, FDA hosted a webinar providing some key points to consider when submitting a 510(k) to the Safety and Performance Based Pathway.
Background information on the Safety and Performance Based Pathway and guidance documents can be found here.
Below is a summary of the nuances that FDA wants your organization to consider if you are in the process of submitting a 510(k) or are considering submitting a 510(k) for well-understood Class II devices through the new Safety and Performance Pathway for Certain Device Types.
First, manufacturers must determine if the device is appropriate for the pathway. The scope of each device-specific performance criteria guidance identifies device types that are appropriate. The guidance indicates which performance device-specific criteria need to be meet, and all criteria outlined must be met.
Secondly, it is still necessary to identify an appropriate predicate for your submission, even though it is not necessary to conduct side by side performance testing of the subject test to the predicate device.
Third, new submissions through the Safety and Performance pathway are evaluated through the same 510(k) substantial equivalence decision flowchart as before. What is unique about this pathway is that to demonstrate performance the subject device must meet all of the FDA identified criteria listed in the device specific guidance. FDA believes this is important as criteria to appropriately determine substantial equivalence “when the indications for use and technological characteristics do not raise different questions of safety and effectiveness from that of the predicate device. And, that the criteria align with one or more predicates of the same device type.”
The determination for whether a device is appropriate of the Safety and Performance 510(k) pathway is typically made during the RTA review stage. During the RTA review stage, if the submission does not have sufficient information or does not meet the criteria there is an opportunity for conversion to another viable 510(k) pathway. However, the conversion may necessitate additional testing that includes a predicate device.
The FDA offers Q-Sub as an opportunity for manufacturers to obtain FDA feedback prior to an intended submission. These meetings are voluntary but can provide valuable insights for manufacturers on both potential and planned medical devices, as well as biologics and drug submissions. The Q-sub meetings are a great avenue to ask FDA questions, gain valuable feedback, and get a documented formal response that can be of future use.
The Q-Sub process can also be used which test methods outside those recommended by FDA are appropriate to meet the identified performance criteria.
Additionally, Q-Sub can be used if additional testing that your organization identified outside of the guidance is necessary to demonstrate the devices safety and performance on a case-by-case basis. The example FDA provided regards adding language to labeling in cases where performance testing is not included in the device-specific guidance. Under this circumstance, additional testing is required.
FDA also included a list of the following resources:
Getting these technical documents together for any 510(k) submission takes expertise and time. Criterion Edge has experience medical writers that can provide support developing and producing your devices 510(k) submissions or pre-submissions. Please reach out to us for a free consult.
Author: Suzanne Broussard, PhD
The Premarket Notification 510(k) Program is the pathway used by manufactures of low- to moderate-risk devices that are substantially equivalent to a device already on the market. Device manufacturers can submit 510(k)s as Traditional, Special, or Abbreviated. See our previous post for an overview of the 4 guidance documents released by FDA in September of 2019.
The Safety and Performance Based Pathway Guidance for Conventional Foley Catheters and Cutaneous Electrodes for Recording Purposes are the first device type guidance documents release by FDA for the expanded Abbreviated Premarket Notification 510(k) Program. This pathway sets the stage for device manufacturers to use performance measures in place of direct comparisons against predicate devices. The direct use of performance measures for devices that qualify for the abbreviated 510(k) Safety and Performance Based Pathway is expected provide manufacturers with substantial savings of both time and resources.
The Safety and Performance Based Pathway, as an expansion of the Abbreviated 510(k) pathway announced by FDA in February of 2019, is designed to be used for well understood device types. Follow the link below for specific information on the program.
Safety and Performance Based Pathway
Certain class II moderate risk devices are able to use the Safety and Performance Based Pathway to gain clearance for marketing if they can demonstrate that they meet FDA’s modern performance criteria. Under these criteria, the device must be demonstrated to be as safe and effective as other devices of the same type that are already on the market that conform to the FDA-identified performance criteria. The Safety and Performance Pathway is appropriate when FDA has determined:
A guidance document was released in September 2019 that describes the optional pathway and provides “FDA’s current thinking on expanding the concept of the Abbreviated 510(k) program for demonstrating substantial equivalence for premarket notification (510(k)) submissions.”
Safety and Safety and Performance Based Pathway
Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff
This newest expansion of the Abbreviated 510(k) Program provides device manufacturers the option to use the performance criteria proposed in the guidance to support substantial equivalence in place of direct comparison of performance of the device to that of a predicated device.
On August 13, 2020, the FDA issued the first final guidance documents for Conventional Foley Catheters and Cutaneous Electrodes for Recording Purposes as part of the FDAs commitment to “strengthen and modernize the 510(k) program.”
Safety and Performance Based Pathway guidance documents are expected to be released by FDA for each device type that qualifies. The first 2 guidance documents for conventional Foley catheters and cutaneous electrodes have similar overall outlines:
The Testing Performance Criteria section clarifies that FDA is asking for a summary of all tests evaluated in addition to the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) for the test specified to “ensure the performance criteria outline in this guidance document remains contemporary and takes into account relevant data from recent clearances.” Furthermore, test information such as results summary, test protocols, or complete test reports need to be submitted as part of the 510(k) as described in the Safety and Performance Based Pathway.
FDA lists 4 additional Safety and Performance Based Pathway guidance document for device types that are currently in draft guidance form and the final guidance’s are expected to roll out in the near future.
The FDA is encouraging industry to become involved in the process. Industry can and should suggest additional device types in which there are comprehensive FDA-recognized consensus standards that correspond with the FDA-identified performance criteria in order to reap the benefits of this Abbreviated 510(k) pathway. In addition, FDA is encouraging industry and other stakeholders to submit evidence-based suggestions on what performance criteria should be for eligible device types. FDA plans to continue to issue draft and subsequent final guidance’s for the Safety and Performance Based Pathway.
Criterion Edge has an experienced team that can provide support for your organization’s risk to benefit analysis and risk management reports. Feel free to reach out to us for a free consult.
FDA’s tips on how to improve Premarket submissions applications and the pending release of the electronic submission program, eSTAR, can be found in our previous post.
Have the IVDR Performance Evaluation and Post Market Surveillance requirements got you tied up in knots? Where do you start? What does the end product look like? We are joined by the VP of Regulatory, Quality, and Clinical from Nextern, a collaborative medical device company bringing unmatched core competence in medical device product design and development. Criterion Edge’s President Laurie Mitchell will lead a discussion of their experiences supporting clients through MDR and IVDR requirements.
In this practical presentation, President Laurie Mitchell will: 1) discuss how an effective scientific communication plan is an important marketing tool for an organization, and 2) present five strategies to ensure your corporate objectives are supported and maximize the real-world impact of your data. Join us to learn how this applies to your organization and how to implement these strategies into your current processes.
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge uncovers what we have learned from our experience in writing MDR-compliant CERs, and how urgently applicable some of these key learnings are in preparing a robust Performance Evaluation Report (PER).
As we all know, the MDR has significantly increased both the quality and quantity of inputs needed to complete a CER, needing more up-front planning than the reports have in the past. Based on our experiences with clients both large and small, our President, Laurie Mitchell, shares some of the biggest issues we have discovered when starting an MDR CER project. Laurie also reveals some of the most successful strategies in addressing these issues, up-front and early.
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge breaks down the steps of the SLR process and takes a wholistic approach to conducting an IVDR-compliant SLR. Using case studies, the presentation illustrates the effective use of SLR-derived data to develop the Scientific Validity Report (SVR) and the Clinical Performance Report (CPR).
In this second installment of our 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge shares practical presentation to help you assess your CER through the critical lens of a writer and identify possible gaps for mitigation before prior to submission to regulatory authorities.
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
Watch this video to learn how Criterion Edge is different from the rest.
This infographic goes through 5 key questions to go through in order to control your budget.
Leading industry experts come together to discuss how the MDR affects data management within their respective units.
This report clarifies the modifications to the equivalence guidelines in MEDDEV 2.7/1 and Quality Management Systems (QMS) ISO 13485 standard to help develop strategies.
This gap analysis addresses key revisions to evaluator qualifications and scientific validity in the Clinical Evaluation (CE) MEDDEV guideline rev.4.
The changes to 2.7/1 rev. 4 suggest the need to submit more frequent CERs to regulatory authorities, however, strategies will be discussed for managing the increased requirements.
Every time a healthcare provider makes a notation in the medical chart, a significant and valuable piece of data has been created. This paper discusses the implications of this.
This piece discusses 10 key strategies to building an efficient regulatory writing process.
In this paper, we discuss a prominent clarification on the MEDDEV 2.7.1 rev 4, establishing the “state of the art” section.
The overwhelming turnout at the ‘How to Assess Your CER for MDR Readiness, Part 1’ prompted us to host a live Q+A session where President Laurie Mitchell exclusively answers all your questions.
President Laurie Mitchell returns to continue sharing more about the importance of the systematic literature review.
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
Establishing and defining state of the art for a medical device is no longer an isolated task – it supports the entire Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). Multiple sections of the MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 compliant CER need to be supported by state of the art data, including safety and performance, risk management, and equivalence.
In this first installment of a 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge will present strategies for assessing key components of your CER (or CER template) for possible misalignment with significant and applicable MDR requirements.
In this webinar, President Laurie Mitchell discusses why safety reviews are essential in the entire life cycle of product development.
Kyoko Hattori from Criterion Edge returns to discuss best practices for managing the adjudication process in-house, and Brian Kelly from AG Mednet will share how the “JUDI” platform can simplify the management of adjudication.
In this webinar, learn about CECs, familiarization with regulatory guidance, decision factors leading to use of a CEC, and much more.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Read more about our privacy policy here.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Tag Manager and Pardot's tracking features to collect information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages. Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
