November 30, 2021

[FEATURED] FDA-Backed Tumor Mutation Database Gives Diagnostics Developers Another Premarket Submission Tool

The US FDA on 7 October recognized a portion of the Oncology Knowledge Base, or OncoKB, which test makers can use as they work to complete premarket submissions. It’s the first database of somatic variants in cancer to be listed in the agency’s Public Human Genetic Variant Databases.


Diagnostics developers now have another tool backed by the US Food and Drug Administration that they can lean on as they work to complete premarket submissions to the agency.

The FDA on 7 October recognized part of a tumor mutation database compiled by the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Cancer Center. The Oncology Knowledge Base, or OncoKB, is the first database of somatic variants in cancer to be listed in the agency’s Public Human Genetic Variant Databases (PHGVD).

Do you like it?0
September 28, 2021

[FEATURED] QSR Q&A: 5 Top Medtech Experts Answer 6 Burning Questions About FDA’s Coming Quality Reg Redo

For this “man on the street” feature, Medtech Insight rounded up industry experts Kim Trautman, Vincent Cafiso, Steve Niedelman, Kwame Ulmer and Josh Levin to answer six questions about the upcoming draft harmonized Quality System Regulation from the US FDA.

Do you like it?0
January 5, 2021

FDA Provides Guidance on the Regulation of Multiple Function Products with Some Functions that Fall Outside the Medical Device Umbrella

Author: Suzanne Broussard, PhD  | January 5, 2021

The increasing number and complexity of medical devices with several functions prompted FDA to provide medical device manufacturers with premarket and postmarket regulatory guidance. In a nutshell, FDA states that it shall not regulate non-device functions of a product with multiple functions – but can consider the impact of non-device functions on the device functions. The guidance identifies the principles and premarket review practices, postmarket requirements, and multiple examples of the application of the policy. 

The term “multiple function” device was first officially addressed by FDA in the 21st Century Cures Act Section 3060 that amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The guidance amended the definition of “device” removing certain software functions (medical and decision software support) and clarifies which software functions (analyze or interpret medical data) remain under FDA’s oversight.    

The Multiple Function Device Products: Policy and Considerations Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration extends that policy to the assessment of all multiple function device products, whether those functions are hardware-based, software-based, or both.  

(more…)
Categories:
Do you like it?0
November 9, 2020

FDA’s Updated Electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) System Aims to Harmonize Adverse Event Reporting

Author: Suzanne Broussard, PhD  | November 9, 2020  

Two doctors discussing about medical report in clinic

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.  

Here is a summary of the updates to the eMDR system

  • Includes new elements for Summary Report and NOE (Number of Events) based on FDA Form 3500A so that submitters will not need to report this information in B5 (Event Narrative) with precise text formatting  
  • Addition of adverse event codes to harmonize with IMDRF Annex E, F, G Codes  
  • FDA Adverse Event codes update that affect the Device Problem Codes and Manufacturer Evaluation Code 
  • New options in the patient gender field 
  • New elements or changes to Exemption Number reporting, indications to submission environments, and B5 and H1 (now mandatory) to reject options not reported properly 
  • Enable a reporter to identify whether the report relates to a combination product 
  • Combination product fields added to allow submitters to include information of up to 20 drugs within a device-led combination product adverse event report 

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. 

(more…)
Categories:
Do you like it?0
November 2, 2020

Nuances of Using the Safety and Performance Pathway for Submitting a 510(k) for Certain Device Types

Author: Suzanne Broussard, PhD  | November 2, 2020  

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.” 

(more…)
Categories:
Do you like it?0