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.
Key steps to help you streamline regulatory process management
Regulatory affairs is constantly changing, and these changes span the entire product lifecycle - from pre-market awareness of global regulations to managing varying and changing market placement and post-market activities. Managing all types of regulatory changes without streamlined processes and methods in place is a daunting task and one that can set regulatory affairs teams up for risks, including project delays, non-compliances, financial impacts, and employee turnover.
With regulatory affairs interactions and activities often spanning various departments, office locations, and external stakeholders, many regulatory affairs teams are left wondering how they can better streamline their process management.
We recapped core methodologies from our recent webinar, Navigating regulatory change: Why streamlined process management is critical for medtech regulatory teams, to help RA teams review their existing processes, identify gaps, and put together a remediation and implementation plan that will enable them to reduce risks and maintain regulatory continuity.
Phase 1 – Assess your team’s current processes
Assigning resources to provide an honest assessment of your regulatory processes can be tough. We've seen the most success by having awareness and involvement from all of your team’s stakeholders, as many of them have a vested interest in your regulatory processes and information. Additionally, we've seen even greater success when those efforts are supported by an executive sponsor who's committed to streamlining these processes and making the changes.
When we talk about assessing current processes, we don’t just mean reading common SOPs and flow charts. We're talking about an honest review of the adequacy of your regulatory inputs. Some questions you can ask to help with your assessment are:
- Do we have everything that we need when we need it?
- Does this process generate valuable deliverables? How hard are we working to generate these outputs?
- Do we have the right tools in place? If not, what tools on the market can help us achieve our goals?
It’s safe to say you can spend less time on processes that you've identified are working well. If you don’t know exactly where to start in a process assessment, it's helpful to think about where you spend most of your time. When focusing on the processes that are taking up most of your time, it’s easier to see where the inefficiencies lie.
Once the opportunities for improvement are identified, it's time to consider all potential risks. Compliance risk is an important thing to consider, but there’s also business risk with slow processes, inefficient processes, or even worse, ineffective processes where RA professionals spend a lot of time arriving at the wrong output or no output at all.
As risk is assessed for these opportunities, you should then consider the effort that it's going to take to resolve each. This measurement doesn't have to be highly specific. The intent for it is to ultimately help you prioritize which regulatory process changes you want to execute with your team first.
Phase 2 – Planning for Improvement
While there is some planning that needs to take place at the time that you kick off the assessment phase to help you understand and establish who's going to assess which processes., this phase is intended to focus on planning for improvement. It starts with prioritizing your inefficient processes from highest to lowest. Gaps should be prioritized and resourced first without trying to “boil the ocean.” This will help your team set itself up for a successful implementation phase next. From our experience, it’s hard to appropriately focus on process improvement when trying to change too many processes at once.
Within the planning phase, you can review the results of the assessments with all of the regulatory stakeholders and any other stakeholders who are involved with the outputs of the processes. The process owners can then take this opportunity to break down silos by understanding the relationship that their processes have with other departments and the effect their outputs have on these departments. Taking the time to understand the impact your processes have on other departments will allow you to be able to make any necessary adjustments to the inputs and outputs of your processes and hone your communication strategies.
From here, you can assign resources and tasks to manage the overall effort with regular check-ins.
Phase 3 – Implementation
Implementation, the easy part as we jokingly say. As you work through the implementation tasks identified in the planning phase and check in with your stakeholders, it's a good idea to test and iterate on your changes to ensure that they continue to make sense. This is also crucial to verify that your changes are advancing the project or the task toward your overall process management goals.
Training is a key element in the implementation phase as well. Any upfront communication that can be provided to the users of the process ahead of the training is going to be beneficial for change adoption and change management. It’s important to not only communicate that process changes are coming but also why they are coming and what benefits the end users of the process and the consumers of the outputs expect to see as a result.
Once those process changes have been implemented, and training is completed, it’s important to measure and monitor the process for the effectiveness of the changes. Some key questions to consider here are:
- Did we gain efficiencies?
- Did we make our lives easier with these process changes?
- What impact have these process changes had on our team, other departments, and our organization?
If you can’t answer these questions positively, it’s important to go back through the assessment planning phase activities to make sure all improvement opportunities and tasks were properly identified and assigned. When you’ve found those changes have made a positive impact, you should communicate those successes with all relevant teams to build a success story within your organization and to encourage additional adoption of these changes.
Our webinar replay, Navigating regulatory change: Why streamlined process management is critical for medtech regulatory teams, has more tips to help you optimize your process management and explains how regulatory tools such as RIM systems can help RA teams automate, track, and manage their processes across global internal and external teams. Download the full replay here.
Rimsys UDI Overview
UDI: More than Just a Barcode and Label
Unique Device Identification (UDI) is a global requirement mandated by regulatory bodies in various countries to facilitate the easy tracking of key medical device information throughout the supply chain. This system ensures traceability from the moment a device is manufactured until it is used in a medical facility or at home.
The UDI system mandates specific labeling requirements, including the placement of a UDI number, a barcode, and essential device information on the medical device's label. This facilitates the straightforward identification and tracking of the device.
The importance of UDI to regulatory affairs teams
The obligations of the device labeler extend beyond just labeling. Manufacturers are also required to submit and update device information in regulatory databases specific to each country where the device is marketed. This part of the regulation underscores the importance of managing UDI data effectively, as it is critical for legally marketing and maintaining medical devices in different markets. As a result, the responsibility for UDI compliance is increasingly recognized as falling within the purview of regulatory affairs departments within manufacturing companies.
The Unique Device Identification (UDI) system, initially introduced by the US FDA, has since been adopted by regulatory authorities worldwide. These authorities are developing their own UDI programs tailored to their countries to deliver similar patient benefits. Each country's UDI program typically mandates specific labeling and device data reporting and maintenance. While there are overlapping elements for the UDI data required, individual countries have set up additional, localized requirements. This creates a layer of digital complexity through unique regulatory database requirements, interfaces for data entry, and the need for machine-to-machine submissions to handle large-scale reporting.
The increasing blend of shared and unique UDI data requirements, along with country-specific regulatory database needs, highlights the importance of developing comprehensive compliance solutions. The drive for digital transformation in this area is fueled by the intensive data demands from both regulators and manufacturers. This transformation aims to simplify the management of expanding requirements and address the growing complexity as more countries adopt UDI programs.
As UDI programs and the necessity for database reporting become mandatory in more countries, manufacturers and labelers must be ready to establish and maintain UDI datasets for both new and existing products in those markets.
How Rimsys can help
Rimsys regulatory management software offers a platform that simplifies the creation, maintenance, and reporting of UDI data. It also provides tools to oversee and manage the entirety of a company's UDI program through a unified solution.
Business outcomes supported by the Rimsys UDI module:
- Remove the risk of data entry error that comes with keeping identical data sets manually in sync - The Rimsys solution allows users to create and manage UDI attribute data from a centralized location and then apply that information to global UDI requirements, where the data requirements overlap multiple markets.
- Reduce the burden of keeping up to date with each country's UDI program - Rimsys monitors global UDI regulatory changes and adds new country requirements directly into the platform as UDI programs are implemented and become required. Rimsys also keeps up with the latest changes to supported UDI programs for the US (FDA) EU (MDR), Saudi Arabia (SFDA), China (NMPA), South Korea (MFDS), and Singapore (HSA) and updates the required fields directly into the platform.
- An open API ecosystem allows "source of truth" data to be integrated into Rimsys as a "post go-live" phase - Ensure data is up to date and locked at the source of truth, yet centralized for application to global UDI requirements in Rimsys. Data that is required but not controlled in a customer's source system can be managed within Rimsys.
- Built-in support of machine to machine (M2M) transmission to GUDID (FDA) with EUDAMED (EU) coming soon - Rimsys alleviates the need to manually upload UDI data into databases when relevant information changes to ensure compliance. Acknowledgments from machine-to-machine interactions are saved directly to Rimsys and associated to each UDI record.
- Leverage the existing product hierarchy in Rimsys to efficiently manage Basic UDI to reduce non-compliance risk for EU MDR - Data requirements for Basic UDI established in Rimsys are included with the M2M process - Coming Soon
- Facilitate impact assessments in Rimsys since UDI information sits alongside product and registration data - Eliminate the need to manually combine disparate data sets.
Ready to see how Rimsys software can help you create and manage the complexities of UDI data? Schedule a custom demo here.
A look at the FDA Total Product Life Cycle Advisory Program (TAP)
The Total Product Life Cycle Advisory Program (TAP) is a voluntary pilot program launched by the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) in October 2023. The TAP Pilot is one of the commitments between the FDA and industry as part of the MDUFA V reauthorization, which aims to provide faster patient access to safe and effective medical devices, increase innovation, improve patient safety through enhanced surveillance and data collection, and provide a more efficient regulatory process for FDA and industry.
Taking a medical device from concept to commercialization in the United States is often a long and challenging process that involves participation and adoption from FDA, clinicians, payers, and patients. The TAP program is addressing the obstacles that device manufacturers often encounter throughout this process with:
- Early and frequent interactions: FDA will provide more opportunities for sponsors to interact with the agency early in the development process, which can help to identify and address potential issues early on.
- Strategic input from stakeholders: The program will involve input from a variety of stakeholders, including clinicians, patient advocates, and payers, which can help to ensure that the development of new devices is meeting the needs of patients and the healthcare system.
- Proactive, strategic advice from CDRH: FDA will provide proactive and strategic advice to sponsors throughout the development process, which can help to reduce the risk of regulatory delays.
Currently, TAP program membership includes the companies or individuals developing the medical devices, the medical device sponsors, dedicated staff within the CDRH, stakeholders consisting of clinicians, patient advocates, payers, and academic experts, and independent advisors. However, It is unclear if independent advisors will continue to be part of the program as TAP expands. Additionally, specific individuals involved in the TAP program at a given time will vary based on the device being developed and the stage of the development process.
While currently still in its pilot phase, the TAP program is open to a limited number of medical devices. To be considered for the program, device manufacturers must have breakthrough designation with no previous pre-submission meetings. The TAP program started with 15 cardiovascular devices last fall and is now at 31 enrolled devices as of February 2024. Enrollment could reach as high as 60 devices by the end of 2024.
As part of the MDUFA V reauthorization, the TAP Program shares the goal of facilitating the development of high-quality, safe, effective, and innovative medical devices. Additionally, the TAP Program strives to reduce device development time and costs through early and frequent feedback from FDA, increase innovation with more predictable and efficient regulatory pathways for new devices, and improve patient access to new devices.
Overall, the TAP program’s focus is on improving the medical device landscape by addressing various challenges and opportunities throughout the product lifecycle. The program's success will be measured by its ability to expedite development, foster innovation, ensure device quality, and ultimately, improve patient access to these potentially life-changing technologies. For more information about the TAP program and enrollment in it, visit FDA’s website.
_thumbnail.avif)
Are FDA risk classifications and submissions any different for SaMDs? [VIDEO]
The number of software as a medical device (SaMD) is growing and with it are questions about how to effectively obtain market clearance for them. One question we hear often is, “Are FDA risk classifications and submissions any different for SaMDs?” Currently, the FDA is regulating SaMDs the same way it’s regulating traditional medical devices. As a result, you’ll still have the same three risk classifications, Class I, Class II, and Class III.
The submission process is also the same. Most Class I devices are 510(k) exempt, and most class II devices would fall under a 510(k) or De Novo submission depending on whether or not substantial equivalence can be made to another US-marketed device. Most Class III devices require PMA submissions.
There have been discussions about FDA pre-certification programs and following IMDRF guidelines for SaMDs, which would alter the submission process and also the risk stratification of SaMDs. However, none of these discussions have matured. The FDA continues to mirror their risk classification and submission guidelines for SaMDs and traditional medical devices.
Watch the full answer to this question from our recent panel discussion with subject matter expert, Prabhu Raghavan of MDQR Solutions, below.
You can also download the full replay here to get answers to other common SaMD questions such as:
- How is the FDA regulating AI/ML in SaMDs?
- What is a Predetermined Change Control Plan (PCCP) for machine learning-enabled medical devices?
- What cybersecurity considerations sh ould be made when taking SaMDs to market?
An introduction to standards for medtech companies
A standard is a published document that is established by consensus and is approved by a recognized body (ISO, IEEE, UL, etc.). It outlines requirements, specifications, guidelines, or characteristics that are used in a repeated way to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are developed for a specific purpose. Think of it as a formula for an agreed upon way of doing something that establishes the best way of performing a function. It could be developing a product, managing a process, or even supplying materials to a manufacturer.
Why are standards important?
Standards enable technology to work seamlessly across industries and markets and help to build consumer trust that products and services are designed to work together in an efficient way. They form the fundamental building blocks for product development by establishing consistent requirements that can be universally applied, practiced, and understood. For example:
- Quality standards reduce product failures on the assembly line.
- Environmental standards reduce environmental impacts, reduce waste, and provide sustainability.
- Health and safety standards reduce accidents in the workplace.
- Food safety standards prevent food from being contaminated.
To ensure standards stay relevant and are aligned with technology changes, many standards organizations require that their standards be reviewed periodically and updated as necessary.
Is an industry standard the same as a regulation?
No, but there is a very close relationship between the two. Simply put, a standard is a guideline whereas a regulation includes laws. Industry standards are used voluntarily (although strongly encouraged) while regulations are not voluntary because they are a requirement from a government agency or similar authority, i.e. ISO 13485 is a standard and building codes are regulations.
- Standards are technical documents, driven by consensus that are crafted by experts.
- Regulations are sometimes based on standards, created by a variety of individuals and entities, while overseen by federal, state, and/or municipal authorities.
It's important to note that while standards aren't mandated by law, many regulatory authorities recognize standards and recommend adherence to them in order to promote safety and quality.
What kind of standards are medtech manufacturers responsible for tracking?
The medical device industry has the responsibility for the design and manufacturing of a wide range of products used to diagnose and treat illnesses to improve health in patients. Medical device standards help ensure that a manufacturing or design process can consistently produce the quality required to serve patients and healthcare professionals around the world.
Some of the more common standards used by the medtech industry include, but are certainly not limited to:
ISO 9001 – A general standard (not industry specific) for quality management and implementing a rigorous quality system. For medtech specifically, it helps with the management of the quality control process by helping to keep costs low, improve accountability and simplify regulatory compliance.
ISO 13485 – This standard is designed for medtech specifically and expands on the framework set up by ISO 9001. Compliance with this standard helps with quality control, process validation, and risk management, often referred to as the risk management standard.
ISO 14971 – This standard specifies terminology, principles, and a process for the risk management of medical devices, including software and in vitro. This helps to identify hazards that may be associated with devices and to minimize those risks.
IEC 60601-1 – Medical Electrical Equipment, general requirements for basic safety and essential performance of equipment.
ISO 10993 – Biological evaluation of medical devices that includes biocompatibility testing of materials used to design product parts that would come into contact with a patient, testing for skin sensitization, and irritabilities.
ISO 15223 – Symbols to be used with information to be supplied by the manufacturer. This standard identifies symbols that are globally accepted to be used in a broad spectrum of medical devices. These symbols can be placed on the device, on the packaging, or on any accompanying information such as instructions for use.
ISO 45001 – This standard outlines the requirements for occupational health and safety management systems that can be employed in the medical device industry to help reduce occupational risk.
Where do I get these standards?
Standards used to design and build medical devices need to be purchased, and you must always maintain the most current revision of that standard to ensure proper adherence to it. They can be purchased as electronic copies, or you can request a paper copy for your files. You can purchase them directly from the standard organization (ISO, IEC, ASTM, UL, etc.). There are also organizations services that will provide standards from many organizations, serving as your to be your one-stop shop.
How do I know when standards change?
The best way to manage how you receive information about changes to industry standards would be to implement an electronic standard tracking system. These systems help to:
- Give you early notifications of changes
- Mitigate your company's risk by ensuring you're up-to-date
- Save you time by eliminating the tracking on your own
- Ensure your standards are up-to-date
Using manual processes such as spreadsheets to manage standards updates can be difficult, time-consuming, and lead to compliance risks - especially when a high number of standards and markets are involved. There are a variety of standards management tools to help medtech companies monitor and manage global standards, including Rimsys.
How can Rimsys help?
Rimsys’ regulatory management software offers standards management to help you stay ahead of the mayhem by providing:
- Access to a library of over 1.6 million global standards through a partnership with IHS Markit
- The ability to link standards to individual products to more easily assess the impact of changes across your product portfolio
- Automatic alerts when standards are changed, superseded, or withdrawn to reduce compliance risks and enable faster reaction times
- Bulk updates to your essential principles/GSPR tables when standards change for easier maintenance and compliance
For more information, visit www.rimsys.io/solutions/standards-management.
Why should you invest in your regulatory team? Easy Medical Device podcast interview
Recently, our Founder and CEO, James Gianoutsos, was a guest on an episode of the Easy Medical Device podcast. Hosted by Monir El Azzouzi, a quality and regulatory professional with over 16 years of industry experience, the Easy Medical Device podcast explores a wide range of topics, news, and challenges to help medtech quality and regulatory professionals gain valuable insights that will help them excel in their roles.
In the episode, Why should you invest in your regulatory team?, James and Monir explore the limitations of traditional cost-center approaches to resourcing and preparing budgets for regulatory affairs teams and discuss the benefits of treating regulatory affairs as a revenue function. Hear their thoughts about:
- How regulatory affiars teams are typically structured
- The importance of the RA job function on revenue
- The impact AI will have on regulatory affairs
- How digital tools can enable RA teams
James also provided tips RA professionals can use to convince their stakeholders to invest in regulatory affairs teams. He emphasized that getting buy-in often involves a mindset shift that will change the dynamic of the conversation. For example, when planning for a renewal, think about the financial impacts of missed renewals rather than the sheer volume of renewals you're doing.
When you're trying to convince your leadership team, don't talk about how many renewals I did for this product in a particular month. talk about the dollar figures you saved the company or retained on the market.
For more tips, listen to the full interview on the Easy Medical Device website.
