Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, Food & Drug Administration, Institute of Medicine, Jeffrey Shuren, Medical device, regulation, UNited States
FDA Loosens Premarket Notification Requirements for 30 Medical Device Types
Written by: mdcieditor Wednesday, August 10th, 2011 | FDA Medical Device Regulations, Industry News and Innovations, Medical Device Quality Assurance
Medical device companies operating in the in vitro diagnostic and radiology sectors of the industry received some surprising news this past month when it was revealed that the FDA had decided to relax certain regulatory requirements pertaining to these products. Specifically, a number of device types will now be exempt from premarket notification requirements.
The move, which affects 30 medical device types ranging from blood testing to radiology film processors, was prompted by the long track record of safety and effectiveness of each respective product. CDRH director Jeffrey Shuren stated that “the agency is taking a smart regulatory approach that eases unnecessary requirements for manufacturers,” without risking the health of the public in the process. The FDA has also stated that this is the first step in what will be a gradual loosening of 510(k) requirements across the board for low-risk radiology and in vitro diagnostic devices.
There is no question that exempting so many medical device products from premarket notification will do more than just “ease” the burden for device makers – it will also go a long way towards freeing up additional FDA resources and allow for greater regulatory attention to be focused in areas where it has been perceived as lacking (innovative high tech products, for example). Despite the 510(k) change, the FDA will still require that each device meet GMP and Quality System regulations.
The FDA has published a guidance document that explains the Administration’s position on the relaxing of 510(k) review for the affected medical device types. Eventually, the plan is for Class II devices implicated in the change to have their status revised to Class I, with Class I devices then undergoing a further revision of their own classification regulations. Until this occurs, the FDA will exercise what it calls “enforcement discretion” in handling premarket notification submissions for the 30 medical device types described within the document. There is as of yet no timetable for the adoption of this dramatic shift in medical device regulatory approval standards, but a 90-day comment period on the proposal is currently in effect.
Benjamin Hunting, MDCI Blogging Team
August 10, 2011
- Medical Devices – Balancing Regulation and Innovation (earlsview.com)
- FDA premarket notification rules for radiology medical devices may change (medcitynews.com)
- Regulatory Reform Series #5 – FDA Medical Device Regulation: Impact on American Patients, Innovation and Jobs (earlsview.com)
- FDA Enforcement Reports documented 233 medical device recalls involving nearly 16 million units (earlsview.com)
- FDA Asked To Reexamine Approval System after 35 Years (health-insurance-carriers.com)
- Sadwin gets to the heart of the Issues with FDA 510(k) (earlsview.com)
- IOM Gives FDA The wrong prescription on medical devices & 510(k) (earlsview.com)
- FDA Seeks Public Views on Proposed 510(k) Plans (earlsview.com)
- FDA medical device review times to be subject of House hearing (earlsview.com)
- 510(k) reforms: FDA downplays the impact of the IOM study on the eve of its release (earlsview.com)
Howard Sadwin said:
I’m getting dizzy again, there is this group overseeing that group and another group overseeing that group, should we scrap the old 510k group vs group investigating this matter and will let us no their decision after they figure out which group they should notify. I bet I could help our current financial debacle, and I won’t have to form 10 more groups. I read one group seemed concerned on protecting the integrity of the FDA’s decision making. Apparently no one that is in any type of decision making regarding approval or requirements to approve medical devices has had the misfortune of experiencing the devastations we have as to quality of lives. I don’t wish this harm on anyone, however, there must be somebody out there with a little common sense and logic ? I almost paid for copies of the new FDA rules,proposed rules etc. but I realized I could go to law school and graduate in the same length of time it would take me to read and understand whatever they are trying to say. I don’t think the FDA has a clue. I haven’t been invited to show the physical, etc. things that can happen, and listen to a lay persons perspective on suggestions to help this system with one group.
they are making us all dizzy! And I don’t think it is just because we are old chaps!
I seems to me that they are stuck with an approach which is more about process than safety and efficacy!
Pingback: FDA Proposes Guidelines That Clarify Benefit-Risk Determinations For Medical Devices « Earl's View
Pingback: The rate at which FDA issues 483s and warning letters is going up, up, up. « Earl's View