"Determining the Regulatory Pathway to Market" Classification Heather S. Rosecrans Director, 510(k) Staff Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Medical Device Law. FDA FDA Regulated Devices From the Beginning Hubbard Electrometer Cases Magnetic Healing Cases Original Law Required Proof of Harm.
Advertisements

BME-IDEA Workshop, September 28, 2005
Regulatory Pathway for Platform Technologies
Entering the US Market: Medical Devices
Overview of FDA Device Regulations
Office of Science and Technology Center for Devices and Radiological Health, FDA William A. Herman eHealth Technologies and the FDA.
Regulation of Medical Devices Celia M. Witten, Ph.D., M.D. Director Division of General, Restorative and Neurological Devices Office of Device Evaluation.
Humanitarian Device Exemptions (HDE) 101 Elizabeth Hillebrenner, MSE Biomedical Engineer IDE and HDE Program Staff Center for Devices and Radiological.
Strengthening the Medical Device Clinical Trial Enterprise
510k Submission Overview Myraqa, Inc. August 22, 2012.
Medical Device User Fee Reauthorization & FDA Update Roadmap to a Successful 510(K) Submission For Your Medical Device August 22, 2012.
Introduction to Regulation
Medical Device Submissions
Medical Devices Approval Process
Entering the North American Market
CBER's policies on assay regulation: Definitions of assay performance characteristics Andrew I. Dayton, M.D., Ph.D. CBER.
CDRH Software Regulation
CBER Managed Review Process Sheryl A. Kochman Deputy Director, DBA, OBRR, CBER September 15, 2009.
The FDA Landscape AdvaMed September 2008 Judith K. Meritz
Regulation of Generic Drugs Office of Generic Drugs Craig Kiester Regulatory Support Branch.
+ Medical Devices Approval Process. + Objectives Define a medical device Be familiar with the classification system for medical devices Understand the.
Animal Feed GRAS Notifications Geoffrey K. Wong, M.S. Division of Animal Feeds Center for Veterinary Medicine Pet Food Institute Pet Food Institute October.
Overview of FDA Regulation of Devices & Diagnostics
Classification of HLA Devices FDA Introduction & Background Sheryl A. Kochman CBER/OBRR/DBA.
1 ACPS November 15, Update Nancy B. Sager, Associate Director Office of Pharmaceutical Science Center for Drug Evaluation & Research Food and.
FDA Resources and Meetings FDA/EMA Orphan Designation and Grant Workshop Silver Spring, Maryland FDA Campus (White Oak) October 12, 2012 Bill Sutton Deputy.
1 THE UNIQUE ROLES OF IRB IN MEDICAL DEVICE CLINICALL TRIAL Chiu Lin, Ph.D. CITI, May, 2009 CITI, May, 2009.
Slide 1 of 19 Rob Packard, President
Prof. Moustafa M. Mohamed Vice dean Faculty of Allied Medical Science Pharos University in Alexandria Development and Regulation of Medical Products (MEDR-101)
The Medical Device Pathway as a Legal Onramp for Futuristic Persons THE FUTURE T HE M EDICAL D EVICE P ATHWAY AS A L EGAL.
Slide 1 of 22 Rob Packard, President 510(k) Project Management.
OIVD Workshop Premarket Notification (510(k)) April 22, 2003 Parklawn Building Rockville, MD Presented by Marjorie Shulman Premarket Notification Staff.
FDA Focus On Consumer Protection
1 CONSENSUS STANDARDS OIVD WORKSHOP April 22-23, 2003 Rockville MD Ginette Y. Michaud, M.D. OIVD.
Medicare Submission for Pre-Approval in Clinical Research Ronda Sharp, R.N., B.S.N., C.C.R.C. Clinical Research Facilitator Methodist Research Institute.
New Draft Guidance for Multiplex Tests Elizabeth Mansfield and Michele Schoonmaker Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety (OIVD) CDRH/FDA.
Humanitarian Use Devices September 23, 2011 Theodore Stevens, MS, RAC Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Center for Biologics Evaluation and.
“513(g)s” Requests for Information Lawrence “Jake” Romanell, RM (AAM) Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
Rules for Supporting Part 803 and Part 806 Decision Making Page 1 Establishing Rules for: Medical Device Reports (803) & Correction and Removal Reports.
Regulatory Decision Making D. Kathleen Wright, Reviewer Division of Microbiology Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation & Safety ( OIVD ) Food.
Hemoglobin Device Regulation Josephine Bautista, M.S., MT (ASCP) Senior Advisor for IVD Regulation DRB/DBA/OBRR/CBER Workshop: Hemoglobin standards and.
October 28, F OOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2007 (FDAAA) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) Presented to the Ninth.
The 510(k) Program Roy Baby, Investigator US Food & Drug Administration 4040 N Central Expressway, Dallas, TX 1.
REGULATION OF MEDICAL DEVICES INNOVATION TUĞÇE YAŞAR
FDA Regulation: The Impact on Product Development and Reporting Monica Graves Director – Marketing Operations Oversight RAI Services Company May 18, 2009.
GU Advisory Panel Meeting Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis Draft Carolyn Y. Neuland, Ph.D. Chief, Gastroenterology and Renal Devices Branch Division of Reproductive,
AMERICAS | ASIA PACIFIC | EMEA Medical Devices: Concept to Commercialization How to avoid delays in getting your product cleared/approved by FDA Robert.
Radiology Advisory Panel Meeting Radiology Advisory Panel Meeting Computer-Assisted Detection (CADe) Devices Joyce M. Whang Deputy Division Director Radiological.
Michael A. Swit, Esq. Vice President, Life Sciences The “De Novo” 510(k) Process and the Reclassification of Class III Devices Medical Device Manufacturers.
The CDRH Software Message (October 19, 2002) John F Murray Jr.. Center for Devices & Radiological Health US Food and Drug Administration
Fireside Chat Playing By The Rules: Navigating The Regulation Pathway Plamena Entcheva-Dimitrov, PhD, RAC, Founder and Principal Consultant – PREFERRED.
Moj Eram, PhD Senior Consultant ARC Experts, LLC 6 April, 2016
Regulation of Generic Animal Drugs in the United States
Device Updates in FDASIA MDUFA III RA SAIC – 9 th April 2013 Karen Jaffe, MS, MBA, RAC or
Device regulations USA Dr Phil Warner. USA Regulations MEDICAL DEVICES Food, Drug & Cosmetics Act Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (and other things)
Food Additives Project
Clinical Review Process for New Drug Development and Application
Division of Cardiovascular Devices
U.S. FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health Update
Premarket Notification 510(k) process
FDA’s IDE Decisions and Communications
How to Put Together an IDE Application
ClinicalTrials.gov: An introduction
Medical Device Premarket Submission Challenges and the Effect of MDUFA IV Robin Fatzinger, RAC VP, Regulatory Affairs Aesculap
Medical Device Regulatory Essentials: An FDA Division of Cardiovascular Devices Perspective Bram Zuckerman, MD, FACC Director, FDA Division of Cardiovascular.
FDA-CDRH in the Next Decade A Vision for Change
FDA Resources and Meetings
Linda M. Chatwin, Esq. RAC Business Manager, UL LLC
Status of premarket submissions to FDA (data source: U. S
Premarket submissions to FDA (data source: U. S
Presentation transcript:

"Determining the Regulatory Pathway to Market" Classification Heather S. Rosecrans Director, 510(k) Staff Office of Device Evaluation Center for Devices & Radiological Health U.S. Food & Drug Administration (240)

1 What is a 510(k)  Premarket Notification  Section 510(k) of FF,D,&C Act  21 CFR 807 Subpart E  Submission for Device Premarket Review  Allows FDA to Make a Determination Regarding Substantial Equivalence (SE)  “The” classification process for a device

2 What a 510(k) Is Not  A Form  Establishment Registration (FDA-2891)  Device Listing (FDA-2892)  Premarket Approval (PMA)  Product Development Protocol (PDP)  Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation (De Novo)

3 Medical Device Amendments of 1976 to the FF,D,&C Act  May 28, 1976  Defined a device (201(h) of the Act)  Required risk based classification of device types legally on the market  Led to classification of approximately 1,700 different generic types of devices and grouped into 19 medical specialties  Required premarket review of devices

4 Safe Medical Devices Act (SMDA)  1990 –513(i) Substantial Equivalence Defined –513(a)(1)(B) Special Controls

5 Food & Drug Modernization Act (FDAMA)  1997 –Redefined 510(k) Exemption Criteria for Class I –Added Class II Exemption Criteria –De Novo –SE w/Limitations –Class II Petitions for Exemption

6 510(k) & Classification  A 510(k) is the classification process for individual post-amendment devices by: –Finding the device substantially equivalent (SE) or –Finding the device not substantially equivalent (NSE)

7 510(k) & Classification  Determination regarding substantial equivalence: –NSE (For reasons other than lack of performance data)  PMA, PDP, or De Novo –NSE for lack of performance data  a new 510(k) may be submitted for review –SE  To Market

8 Substantially Equivalent (SE)  If: –In Comparison to a legally marketed device (that does not require PMA), it: Has the same intended use, and Has the same technological characteristics as the predicate device, Or

9  Has the same intended use, and  Has different technological characteristics and the information in the 510(k): –Does not raise a new question(s) of safety and effectiveness; and –Demonstrates it is at least as safe and effective as the predicate. Substantially Equivalent (SE)

10 510(k) & Classification  Finding the device not substantially equivalent (NSE): –automatically places device into class III and requires: PMA; Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation (de novo); or Reclassification before marketing

11 Not Substantially Equivalent (NSE)  There is no predicate device; or  The device has a new intended use; or  The device has different technological characteristics compared to the predicate device and raises a new type question(s) of safety and effectiveness *All of the above require no review of data and will require PMA or De Novo.

12 Not Substantially Equivalent (NSE)  The data provided do not demonstrate that the device is at least as safe and effective as the predicate. *FDA usually asks for additional information at least once prior to determining the device is NSE for lack of data *The above NSE reason requires review of the data and would require submission of a new 510(k) with new data to demonstrate SE.

13  Approximately 80% are found SE  2 – 3% are found NSE  Remaining 510(k)s are usually withdrawn 510(k) & Classification

Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation “de novo” Classification  Section 513(f)(2)  De novo received within 30 days of receipt of NSE letter (NSE reason for other than lack of performance data)  No predicate/“Low risk” devices  60-day review period  Extensions for submission of additional information granted

Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation “de novo” Classification (cont.)  If approved, new device proceeds immediately to market  30 days after the signed approval order, notification is published in FR  New classification regulation established  New device becomes new classification/predicate  Next person may submit a 510(k) and use de novo as the predicate

16