Featured
Rimsys Announces Rimsys AI to Eliminate Repetitive Tasks and Enhance Decision-Making for MedTech Regulatory Teams
Rimsys, the leading Regulatory Information Management (RIM) platform for the MedTech industry, today announced the launch of Rimsys AI, a suite of embedded artificial intelligence (AI) agents.
The beginner's guide to the FDA De Novo classification process
This article is an excerpt from The beginner's guide to the FDA De Novo classification process ebook.
Contents
- Introduction
- Chapter 1: What is an FDA De Novo request?
- Chapter 2: Contents of a De Novo request
- Chapter 3: Submitting a De Novo request
- Appendix A: Acceptance review checklist
Congratulations, you have successfully developed a new medical device! Now you need to take it to market. Normally in the United States this would mean completing a 510(k) submission. However, the 510(k) relies on “substantial equivalence”—a comparison to a similar device already on the market (also called a predicate device) to assess the risk profile of the new device. What if your device is totally new, and there isn’t a similar device to compare it to? Enter the FDA De Novo process. The De Novo process provides a pathway to market for novel devices with a low to medium risk profile.
What does De Novo mean?
According to the Merriman-Webster dictionary, de novo is a Latin word meaning “as if for the first time; or anew.” Perfectly fitting that the FDA uses this term “De Novo” to describe market approval requests for new medical devices or technology where there is no comparable predicate device on the market.
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1996 provided the FDA with the authority to create the De Novo Classification Process. It's a process that uses a risk-based strategy for a new, novel kind of medical device, in vitro diagnostic, or medical software solution whose type has previously not been identified and/or classified. It’s a process by which a novel medical device can be classified as a Class I or Class II device, instead of being automatically classified as Class III, which may not be appropriate. Before the implementation of the De Novo process in 1997, all the “not substantially equivalent” (NSE) products were required to be initially classified as a Class III device. But for a lot of devices, this risk class didn’t really make sense. The De Novo process provides a pathway for more accurate classifications of novel, lower-risk devices.
October, 2021, the FDA released a final guidance document "De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)" to provide guidance to the requester (also known as the manufacturer) and the FDA on the process for the submission and review of a De Novo Classification Request under section 513(f)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). This process provides a pathway to an initial Class I or Class II risk classification for medical devices for which general controls or general and special controls, provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but for which there is no legally marketed predicate device. This guidance document replaced the "New Section 513(f)(2) – Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff" document, dated February 19, 1998.
Consistent with the final rule, the FDA updated the guidance documents below to provide recommendations for submitting De Novo requests, as well as criteria and procedures for accepting, withdrawing, reviewing, and making decisions on De Novo requests, effective January 3, 2022.
- User Fees and Refunds for De Novo Classification Requests
- FDA and Industry Actions on De Novo Classification Requests: Effect on FDA Review clock and Goals
- Acceptance Review for De Novo Classification Requests
The 510(k) and the De Novo processes are similar in that they are both pathways to market for medical devices with low to moderate risk, which is Class I and Class II. The biggest difference between the two is that the 510(k) heavily relies on the concept of "substantial equivalence" to an existing medical device. You must prove this to get the clearance of your 510(k) submission. In the De Novo process, there isn’t a product currently on the market that is “substantially equivalent” to yours, so it’s like starting with a clean slate. For more on the 510(k) process, see our Beginner’s Guide to the 510(k) ebook.
A result of the De Novo process to be aware of is that a successful submission will lead to a new predicate device type that someone else can reference to bring their product to market through the 510(k) process. You’ve done all the work, so now it’s available for anyone to use to provide "substantial equivalence".
De Novo history/timeline
Preparing a De Novo request
1. Do your research! Be sure to complete all the necessary research prior to your submission. You want to be sure that your device is not substantially equivalent to an existing device. Resources to review include:
- The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
- U.S. FDA Device Classification Database
- Device Classification Under Section 513(f)(2)(De Novo)
2. A De Novo request can be submitted with or without a preceding 510(k). There are two options for when you can submit a De Novo request:
Option A: After receiving a not substantially equivalent (NSE) determination (that is, no predicate, new intended use, or different technological characteristics that raise different questions of safety and effectiveness) in response to a 510(k) submission.
Option B: If you’ve determined, after extensive research, that there is no legally marketed device on which to base a determination of substantial equivalence.
3. Be sure all fees are paid to the FDA in advance of submitting a De Novo request. The FDA’s fiscal year begins in October and runs through the following September. Fees have increased each year since they were introduced, but the FDA’s percentage of reviews completed within the 150-day window has increased as well.
A business that is qualified and certified as a “small business” is eligible for a substantial reduction in most of the FDA user fees, including De Novo. The CDRH is responsible for the Small Business Program that determines whether a business is qualified.
Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) guidance documents can provide more detailed information about all FDA user fees.
4. The initial request process serves only to determine if the De Novo request is administratively acceptable based upon the Acceptance Checklist. The initial acceptance is followed by substantive review which will determine the final risk classification of your device.
5. A Pre-Submission (Pre-Sub) is a formal written request for feedback from the FDA that is provided in formal written form, and then followed by a meeting. Although a Pre-Sub is not required prior to a De Novo request, it can be extremely helpful to receive early feedback, especially for devices that have not previously been reviewed under a 510(k). If you think you would like to submit a pre-sub first, there are suggested guidelines for submission you should consider:
- Describe your rationale for a Class I or Class II classification for your device.
- Provide the search results of FDA public databases and other resources used to determine that no legally marketed device and no classification for the same device type exists.
- Provide a list of regulations and/or product codes that may be relevant.
- Provide a rationale for why the subject device does not fit within and/or is different from any identified classification regulations, based on available information.
- Identify each health risk associated with the device and the reason for each risk.
- Briefly describe any ongoing and/or planned protocols/studies that need to be completed in order to collect the necessary data to establish the device’s risk profile.
- Provide information regarding the safety and effectiveness of the device. Cite the types of valid scientific evidence you anticipate providing in your De Novo request, including types of data/studies relating to the device’s safety and effectiveness.
- Briefly describe any ongoing and/or planned protocols/studies that need to be completed to collect the necessary safety and effectiveness data.
- Provide protocols for non-clinical and clinical studies (if applicable), including how they will address the risks you anticipate and targeted performance levels that will demonstrate that general controls or general and special controls are sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.
- Share any proposed mitigation measure(s)/control(s) for each risk, based on the best available information at the time of the submission. Highlight which mitigations are general controls and which are special controls and provide details on each.
- Include any other risks that may be applicable, in addition to those identified in the Pre-Sub, given the indications for use for the device.
- If applicable, provide any controls that should be considered to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for the device.
- Provide any non-clinical study protocols that are sufficient to allow the collection of data from which conclusions about device safety and/or effectiveness can be drawn. These protocols should address whether the identified level of concern is the appropriate level of concern for the device software, and if any additional biocompatibility and/or sterility testing is required.
- If clinical data is needed, provide information to show that the proposed study design and selected control groups are appropriate?
6. The FDA will attempt to review the De Novo request submission within 15 calendar days of receipt of the request to make a determination that the submission is declined or accepted for review. If they are unable to complete the review within the 15 days, your submission will automatically move to “accepted for review” status. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/de-novo-classification-process-evaluation-automatic-class-iii-designation
7. There are times when the FDA will refund your application fee. They have created a guidance document “User Fees and Refunds for De Novo Classification Requests” for the purpose of identifying:
- the types of De Novo requests subject to user fees
- exceptions to user fees
- the actions that may result in refunds of user fees that have been paid
When is a De Novo request subject to a user fee?
When will the FDA refund a De Novo user fee?
What fee must be paid for a new device submission following a De Novo “decline” determination?
To continue reading this eBook including a detailed walk-through of all the Traditional 510(k) components, submission requirements and timelines, and an overview of the other 510(k) forms including the Abbreviated 510(k) and the Special 510(k), please register to download the full version.
The ultimate guide to the medical device single audit program (MDSAP)
This article is an excerpt from The ultimate guide to the medical device single audit program (MDSAP) ebook.
Table of contents
- What is MDSAP?
- History of MDSAP
- Who is responsible for the MDSAP?
- How does an MDSAP audit work?
- Audit sequence
- You got a nonconformity – now what?
- What does an MDSAP audit cost?
- Why choose the MDSAP certification process?
- Potential disadvantages of the MDSAP
- Ready to participate? – Here’s how to get started
- Completing a successful MDSAP audit
The Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) was designed and developed to allow a single audit of a medical device manufacturer to be applied to all country markets whose regulatory authorities are members of the program. The MDSAP provides efficient and thorough coverage of the standard requirements for medical device manufacturer quality management systems, and requirements for regulatory purposes (ISO 13485:2016). In addition, there are specific requirements of each medical device regulatory authority participating in the MDSAP that must be met:
- Conformity Assessment Procedures of the Australian Therapeutic Goods (Medical Devices) Regulations (TG(MD)R Sch3)
- Brazilian Good Manufacturing Practices (RDC ANVISA 16)
- Medical Device Regulations of Health Canada (ISO 13485:2003)
- Japan Ordinance on Standards for Manufacturing Control and Quality Control of Medical Devices and In Vitro Diagnostic Reagents (MHLW Ministerial Ordinance No 169)
- Quality System Regulation (21 CFR Part 820), and specific requirements of medical device regulatory authorities participating in the MDSAP program.
This means that a report from a single MDSAP audit of a medical device manufacturer would be accepted as a substitute for routine inspections by all the member Regulatory Authorities (RAs) across the world. There are currently five participating Regulatory Authorities (RA) representing the following countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and the USA.
In April, 2021, the RAs released an “Audit Approach” document (MDSAP AU P0002.006) that combines the formerly separate MDSAP Audit Model and Process Companion documents into a single guidance document. It includes guidance for assessing the conformity of each process and includes an audit sequence, instructions for auditing each specific process, and identifies links that highlight the interactions between the processes.
In March 2012 the US FDA announced that they had approved a final pilot guidance document “Guidance for Industry, Third Parties and Food and Drug Administration Staff: Medical Device ISO 13485:2003 Voluntary Audit Report Submission Pilot Program.” This allowed the owner or operator of a medical device manufacturing facility to be removed from FDA’s routine inspection work plan for 1 year upon completing a ISO 13485:2003 audit. This guidance document went into effect in June 2012, and was intended as an interim measure while a single audit program was being developed.
This pilot program was not very successful and few companies signed up because they did not see any advantage in participating. The manufacturer had to pay for a third party to inspect their facilities, generate a report, and share the inspection results back to the FDA. Many companies were reluctant to contract “someone else” to perform their inspection when they could easily wait for the FDA to conduct an inspection for free.
During its inaugural meeting in Singapore in 2012, the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) appointed a working group to develop a set of documents for a harmonized third-party auditor system. Hence, the “Medical Device Single Audit Program” (MDSAP) was formed. The concept was similar to the FDA’s original idea of creating a third-party auditor to help reduce their workload of performing regulatory audits of medical device manufacturers’ quality management systems. This new approach would consist of a single audit that would review regulatory QMS compliance, conducted by a third-party, who would later be called an Auditing Organization (AO).
From January 2014 to December 2016, five countries participated in a Medical Device Single Audit Program Pilot. In June 2017, a report was generated summarizing the outcomes of prospective “proof- of-concept” criteria established to confirm the success of the program. The outcomes are documented in the final MDSAP Pilot Report and recommended that the program become fully active and open to any manufacturer who requested this type of audit.
The governing body of the MDSAP is the Regulatory Authority Council (RAC), which is composed of two senior managers (and a few other staff members) from each participating RA. They are responsible for executive planning, strategic priorities, setting policy, and making decisions on behalf of the MDSAP International Consortium. The RAC also reviews and approves documents, procedures, work instructions, and more. The mission of the MDSAP International Consortium is to jointly leverage regulatory resources to manage an efficient, effective, and sustainable single audit program focused on the oversight of medical device manufacturers on a global scale.
Other international partners that are involved in the MDSAP include:
MDSAP Observers:
- European Union (EU)
- United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
- The World Health Organization (WHO) Prequalification of In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Program
MDSAP Affiliate Members:
- Argentina’s National Administration of Drugs, Foods and Medical Devices (ANMAT)
- Republic of Korea’s Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
- Singapore’s Health Sciences Authority (HSA)
The observers and affiliate members are not the same as the participating member RA’s. The observers simply observe and/or contribute to RAC activities. Affiliate members, on the other hand, are interested in engaging in the MDSAP program and are subject to certain rules. They are only given access to a certain level of information about the manufacturers, audit dates, and information in audit reports.
They are also invited to attend sessions that are open to members, observers, and affiliates only.
Audits can also be conducted by MDSAP participating RAs at any time and for various reasons including:
- "For Cause" due to information obtained by the regulatory authority
- as a follow up to findings from a previous audit
- to confirm the effective implementation of the MDSAP requirements
The purpose of audits conducted by the RAs is to ensure appropriate oversight of the AOs MDSAP auditing activities. The AOs are appointed by the RAs and a list of the currently approved AO’s is published on the FDA website. Most AOs offer a broad range of management system certification services, beyond just medical devices. Manufacturers should verify that prospective AOs are clearly trained and perform MDSAP audits of medical devices.
AOs have the final word as to whether a manufacturer has met the requirements for the MDSAP during the execution of the audit and generation of the associated reports summarizing the results. MSDAP RAC participating RAs have the final decision regarding all development, implementation, maintenance, and expansion activities associated with the program.
Although an unannounced visit by an AO is rare, it can happen in circumstances where high-grade nonconformities have been detected.
To continue reading this eBook including a detailed look at the MDSAP audit process and grading, pros and cons of the approach, and how to get started please register to download the full version.
Announcing the Rimsys advisory board
Rimsys Regulatory Management Software, the leading Regulatory Information Management (RIM) platform designed specifically for the medical device industry, is proud to announce the creation of its prestigious advisory board.
By creating an advisory board with the most forward-thinking minds and preeminent talent in the medical device industry, Rimsys is now aligned and positioned to continue its growth and mission as the leading regulatory management software in the medical device industry.
The board members serve as strategic partners in the continued development and success of Rimsys, as a catalyst to achieving its short-term and long-term goals. The board is comprised of trusted thought leaders, known for being change agents in the industry and having the respect of their peers throughout their career and community.
"The management team could not be more pleased with the addition of these board members and involvement they have with the direction of our company. We are fortunate and thrilled to have such talented and experienced industry veterans and look forward to their many contributions,” said James Gianoutsos, Founder & President of Rimsys."
As advocates and ambassadors of Rimsys, the board supports the management team through strategic analysis, consultation, and providing professional expertise and guidance to help navigate and mitigate potential risks, discover opportunities, and define benchmarks for continued success and organizational growth.
"Rimsys is a very unique product in the marketplace, so it’s only fitting that we bring on such unique minds to the board. Their expertise and vision are exactly what is needed to help us improve our business, our technology and expand our product offerings,” said Brad Ryba, CTO of Rimsys."
The current advisory board members include:
John Speer
Jon Speer has over 20 years of experience in the medical device industry that includes quality management, product development, and project management at Creo Quality, Cook Inc., Theron Inc., and Maetrics LLC. Jon is experienced in managing multiple projects and taking medical device concepts through development, regulatory submission, and ultimately to market. Additionally, Jon is an expert in the design and implementation of FDA-compliant quality management systems and is an active contributor at MedCity News, Med Device Online, Quality Digest, QMed, and is the host of the #1 most downloaded podcast in the industry, The Global Medical Device Podcast. Jon currently serves as the Founder and VP QA/RA at Greenlight Guru, an eQMS that is specifically designed for the medical device industry.
Chris Ferguson
Chris Ferguson has over 15 years of global medical device quality and regulatory affairs experience managing class I, II, and III medical devices and consumer products for numerous world-class global organizations. Chris has successfully led global quality and regulatory projects and teams through FDA, ISO, consumer safety audits, and quality system remediation activities and has in-depth knowledge of the current regulatory landscape. Chris currently serves as Director of Quality Assurance for TransEnterix, Inc.
Bruce McKean
Bruce McKean has over 25 years of medical device industry experience as a regulatory professional specializing in quality and regulatory (Q&R) compliance, design controls, and Q&R related mergers and acquisitions. During his career, Bruce has focused on implementing and maintaining design controls, product submissions, quality management systems internal to his company and for newly acquired companies, corporate Q&R internal audit program, and performing Q&R due diligence audits on target companies. Most recently, Bruce has led a corporate-wide MDSAP compliance initiative and is focusing on the EU MDR implementation. Bruce currently serves as Director of Q&R Operations at Philips Healthcare.
Adam Price
Adam Price has over 15 years of medical device industry experience as a quality assurance and regulatory affairs professional. Adam is currently focused on the development of strategies and solutions to establish and maintain compliance in today’s fast-paced regulatory environment to enable businesses to meet the demands of the global market. Adam is cognizant of dynamic and complex market requirements and the need for effective tools and solutions to allow businesses to maintain continued regulatory compliance. Adam currently serves as Head of Post-market Surveillance at Philips Healthcare.
The 510(k) application: if content is king, then communication is queen
Often, the first thing we hear from a consultant or a medical device company regarding an FDA 510(k) premarket notification is that it was delayed because the FDA reviewer did not understand something simple within the application, or completely missed it.
What is wrong with the reviewer? How could they have missed something so simple? I couldn’t have been any clearer!
Sound familiar?
FDA is overworked, under-resourced, and will most likely miss something simple in your file upon reviewing.
As the specification developer, you know the design and history of the product better than anyone. You are providing that entire history in a formal application for review, and hopefully, clearance. A basic understanding of the technology is a must; however, think about the situation from the FDA reviewers’ point of view. 510(k) applications are inherently technical and sometimes need a brief discussion with the FDA reviewer for clarification or a general overview of your device.
Starting this dialog earlier is important for a smooth path to clearance. Part of this process involves requesting a Pre-Submission (“Pre-Sub”). Pre-Subs are a type of feedback that is part of FDA’s Q-Submission program.
Pre-Subs
Pre-Subs are a formal written request from an applicant for feedback from FDA to be provided in the form of a formal written response or a meeting (in-person or teleconference) in which the feedback is documented in meeting minutes. A Pre-Sub provides the opportunity for a submitter to obtain FDA feedback prior to intended submission of a premarket submission (i.e., IDE, PMA, HDE, De Novo request, 510(k), Dual, BLA, IND) or Accessory Classification Request, among others.
Pre-Subs are entirely voluntary on the part of the applicant. However, early interaction with FDA and careful consideration of FDA’s feedback may improve the quality of subsequent submissions, shorten total review times, and facilitate the development process for new devices.
Pre-Subs provide FDA reviewers with an introduction to you and your device rather than just having a 510(k) application dumped on their desk. FDA reviewers appreciate Pre-subs because they can get a sense of when they should anticipate filings and can plan their workloads accordingly.
FDA reviewers, like all of us, only have a certain amount of time during the day. If they are unable to find information easily or do not properly understand something, then they may state that the relevant information is missing from the application or needs further clarification. This kicks the 510(k) application back to you and stops the review clock. That is directly on the industry submitter, not the FDA reviewer.
The bottom line
FDA reviewers are people too. This is an obvious but often overlooked point to make. Sometimes they miss simple (and sometimes seemingly apparent) information. They make mistakes. The last thing you want to do is start yelling or pointing fingers. After all, you don’t want to burn any bridges as you will most likely deal with the same FDA reviewer upon subsequent submissions for similar products. Always be timely, concise, straightforward and respectful.
At the end of the day, keep in mind that your FDA reviewer isn’t as familiar with your medical device as you are. You need to help them understand items that are unclear, and the only way to do that is through building the communication channel early and having constructive conversations.
Did you know Rimsys Regulatory Management Software will keep track of all communications, notes, decisions, and tasks associated with your 510(k) application and other international regulatory submissions? Find out more now with a free demo and we will show you the power of the only regulatory information management (RIM) system platform designed specifically for the medical device industry.
Introducing government submission templates (i.e. 510k, STED, CSDT) and more!
Rimsys released a major revision on Dec. 3, 2018 that included adding registration workflows, registration owners, Kanban boards, new registration dates (e.g. anticipated approvals dates) and registration lifecycle stages.
Rimsys has been working aggressively over the last month to finish up the final touches on our next release, and we are excited to tell you that it has been officially released! These new features will benefit any size of an organization and continues our pathway to better serving the regulatory affairs professionals in the medical device industry.
Here are a few of our features released:
- Document templates – Depending on where you are registering your product, you can now choose or create your own document template that your team can follow to keep you compliant, better organized, and standardize your regulatory process. A few of our templates include: Summary of Technical Documentation (STED) for IVD and non-IVD Medical Devices, ASEAN Common Submission Dossier Template (CSDT), 510k Template, and more!
- Multi-product registrations – You can choose 1 or 1000 products (at the part number level) to register simultaneously into one market.
- Bulk search & replace for essential principles – We have been working with a few of our customers to get this functionality rolled out by the beginning of January. You now have the ability to search / replace / or remove a standard or a document throughout multiple essential principle tables simultaneously. Let’s say you are managing 10 (or even 500) essential requirements checklists…with a few clicks of a button, you can search, find and replace 1 (or all) standards or documents in EVERY table! If you have ever managed an essential requirements checklist before, we can’t stress enough of how HUGE of a time saver this is for you and your team!
- Embedded documents in essential principles – We now automatically embed your objective evidence directly into the Essential Principles PDF record. This means that when you export your essential principles as a PDF, every single document that is linked to it will be embedded directly into the searchable PDF. You never have to go looking for documents again!
- Dashboard updates – Added key metrics so your team can all be on the same page
- Expanded reporting capabilities – Added the ability to drill-down into key metrics
With this release, Rimsys will be better positioned to cater to organizations of all sizes. We have even more features and modules coming out in the coming months that will further enhance the benefit you receive from using Rimsys.
What’s next?
Rimsys has been working hard to be the single source of truth of all things regulatory related for medical devices. One of the most frequently requested features from our customers is the ability to bring regulatory updates on regulations, laws and guidance documents directly into Rimsys. We are happy to report that this feature has been in development for quite some time and we will be releasing in the next couple of months.
MDSAP device marketing authorization and facility registration
What is the medical device single audit program (MDSAP)?
The International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) recognized that a global approach to auditing and monitoring the manufacturing of medical devices could improve their safety and oversight on an international scale. This created the Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) and allows a recognized Auditing Organization to conduct a single regulatory audit of a medical device manufacturer that satisfies the relevant requirements of the regulatory authorities participating in the program.
To date, the MDSAP participating countries include:
- Australia (Therapeutic Goods Administration – TGA)
- Bazil (Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária)
- Canada (Health Canada)
- Japan (Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency)
- United States (FDA)
The World Health Organization (WHO) Prequalification of In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Programme and the European Union (EU) are Official Observers, which means they are waiting for the results of the pilot MDSAP program to determine if it’s worth their while to sign on as an official partner.
When does MDSAP come into effect?
Starting January 1, 2019, if you’re selling medical devices into Canada, it’s not optional and you must be certified to MDSAP, or at the very least, show evidence that you are in the process of complying.
As part of the MDSAP auditing program, there are seven chapters an auditor must cover. One of those chapters is specific to marketing authorization and facility registration, which also touches on two other chapters, management and design development. An auditor will be specifically looking for the following:
- Have you complied with requirements to register and/or license your device facility;
- Did you submit device listing information;
- Did you obtain device marketing authorization;
- Have you arranged for assessment of changes and obtained marketing authorization for changes to devices or the quality management system which require an amendment to existing marketing authorization
You must have that information organized in a meaningful way that you can get to it quickly and show, objectively, that you fulfilled the requirements of MDSAP and all of the country regulatory requirements that fall under MDSAP. That also goes hand-in-hand with ISO 13485:2016 where you need a controlled release of products into the appropriate jurisdiction. If you’re trying to be a global leader or a global company, for that matter, in this day and age, you need to have a solid system in place to manage those marketing authorizations worldwide.
Controlled release of product
If you are selling out of the United States, you must comply with the laws of each importing country. That simply means, no matter where you sell outside of the United States, you must meet the importing country’s requirements for marketing authorization. Your regulatory team and business need to be on point by having a robust regulatory system in place that upon product release, you’re meeting those specific requirements. You must have a mechanism in place to ensure that you don’t release product prior to it being properly registered.
That mechanism starts during product realization. Sales, marketing, customer service, engineering, operations, and regulatory teams must all be on the same page. Often times, regulatory is perceived as the bottleneck to product release. However, this is a misconception and is primarily driven by poor planning during the design and development process.
Auditing to MDSAP
Auditors are looking for the standardized process for controlling the release of the product and ensuring that the process has been adequately established and implemented within your facility. MDSAP has a very rigid auditing process to ensure the proper market authorizations have been obtained and facility registrations have occurred.
When your company is audited, an auditor will request records from product outside of the MDSAP participating countries due to the broad jurisdiction of US and international regulations. If the auditor finds issues with those products, they can draw that parallel to determine that your company doesn’t have a controlled product release process and you need to investigate to ensure there isn’t a systemic issue. That means an audit observation and a corrective and preventive action (CAPA) plan need to be established to rectify the issue(s).
What does this mean for medical device manufacturers?
A regulatory professional’s job is worldwide nowadays, which means it is a lot of responsibility, burden and business risk that are on their shoulders. Do you really want all of that being managed by excel files, outlook reminders, and disjointed processes? It must be a fundamental, standardized process, ingrained into your quality management system, that you need in place in order to NOT run into any compliance issues. Your organization must have a standardized process to ensure that your company is releasing good (and approved) product into the market while maintaining any changes to that product (and registration) while it’s in that market.
The requirement is not only that you get the marketing authorization, but you stay compliant when you’re already in that market. That means you must constantly be monitoring for expiring registrations, any type of design changes with your product, and how they affect your marketing authorizations within those countries.
From a quality management system standpoint, you need a good change control process in place that ties directly to your regulatory team. If you don’t have a good regulatory process now, you’re not going to have one later. It’s going to be too late, and the amount of information that your regulatory team must handle today is only going to increase. That’s why you must develop those systems now.
To learn more about the MDSAP, markets where it’s applicable, pros and cons of using MDSAP vs Regulatory Authority inspections, and audit sequence and grading, download our Ultimate Guide to MDSAP.
Top 6 benefits of a regulatory information management (RIM) system for medical devices
The medical device and in-vitro diagnostic medical device industry are in dire need of a robust, practical and easy to use regulatory information management (RIM) system. Without a unified and collaborative system, serious consequences to your business can occur, including an increased risk of non-compliance, increased costs as well as a possible significant reduction in a product’s revenue potential.
1. Revenue impact
Missing registration dates, slow-to-market losses, and long-term, cascading impacts such as loss of customer loyalty have an immediate impact to market capitalization. Moreover, improper release of product due to lack of visibility to regulatory statuses can cause fines and loss of credibility with authorities, which can result in increased scrutiny.
2. Regulatory compliance
Compliant product releases are required in the medical device industry. Automation that creates safeguards to prevent unintentional release of products into markets is a must. Regulators from different markets are working together to identify instances of non-compliance as well as misalignment of information in submissions and other communications. More effective control of the submission, enabled by a unified platform, can lead to a leaner, higher quality submission and a reduced regulatory burden.
3. Faster time to market
Better planning and tracking in a unified system can monitor process metrics, milestones, and automatically informing submissions plan timelines with actual performance. A unified solution connects planning to execution, allowing improved, real-time process monitoring. Teams can quickly spot constraints and take action, allowing the product to get through your process faster.
4. Efficiency and collaboration
Regulatory processes touch multiple functional areas. Regulatory functions have been piecing together disparate systems to achieve marginal improvement. This landscape inhibits the accurate and timely transfer of data and disruption in cross-functional workflow.
5. Efficiency and collaboration
Employee turnover on regulatory teams is linked to the stress and increases greatly if team members consider processes to be inefficient or wasteful. Being able to perform one’s job efficiently and the perception of being part of a high-performing organization contributes to employee satisfaction and retention.
6. Insurance policy
Having a fail-safe in place now for when (not if) your top talent leaves prevent the loss of company and product specific tribal knowledge. Retraining a new employee without the subject matter expert can cause delays and wasted time. A unified system keeps all information within the company.
Introducing project management and essential principle templates
Directly on the heels of our new User Interface (UI) released at the end of September and debuting at the RAPS Regulatory Convergence in October, we are proud to announce another HUGE release.
Project management (for large and small teams)
Properly managing registrations across the world with dozens of stakeholders trying to collaborate on critical information is challenging enough, so we just made it easier for enterprise and large teams to manage everything.
The project management features were frequently requested and will set Rimsys up for further development of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor the efficiency of your team and the registration process.
It will also allow Rimsys to further expand reporting capabilities and dashboard metrics so you can easily track and analyze data specific to your team, registrations, products, and countries.
- Registration owner - Assign an owner so you know who is responsible for each registration
- Anticipated approval date - Identify an anticipated approval so you can forecast product releases with other departments
- Registration start date - Automatically creates the registration start date so you can monitor exactly how long a registration takes from start to finish.
- Registration lifecycle stages - Whether you are in the discovery, planning, execution or submission stage of the registration process, you can now keep track with your own configurable buckets.
- Kanban boards - Visually see your registrations in each lifecycle stage and transition them into new stages by a simple drag n’ drop interface.
Essential principles (expansion of templates)
We always had a grander plan in mind. Rimsys was originally set up to include the new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 Annex I General Safety and Performance Requirements (GSPR) but now supports Essential Principles Templates that include:
- IVDR 2017/746EU IVDR GSPR
- Australian (TGA) Essential Principles
- Japan (PMDA) Essential Principles
- GHTF/SG1/N68:2012 IMDRF Essential Principles
- Directive 2006/42/EC – Machinery Directive
- and more to come!
The essential principles expansion complies with country entrance requirements and will set Rimsys up for further development of correlation tables. What are correlation tables you ask? Think of this….you create the general safety and performance requirements table for the EU MDR, then with a click of a button, you create the essential principle tables that meet the requirements for all other countries. More to come…
What’s next?
Next month, we will be making a few more major announcements that will bring you new and even better features that will drastically create more value to your company and team. We can’t wait to share the news with you…stay tuned!
