CDRH To Abandon Bad Precedents On Path To Predictable 510(k)s

Article reprinted from "The Gray Sheet" - December 21, 2009

FDA's device center wants to make the 510(k) process more predictable, but one of the first steps to accomplishing this is to break from what CDRH acknowledges are some questionable past decisions, according to a top Office of Device Evaluation official.  Read more...

CDRH To Abandon Bad Precedents On Path To Predictable 510(k)s

Article reprinted from "The Gray Sheet" - December 21, 2009

FDA's device center wants to make the 510(k) process more predictable, but one of the first steps to accomplishing this is to break from what CDRH acknowledges are some questionable past decisions, according to a top Office of Device Evaluation official.

In the short term, this means that companies should be wary of relying primarily on past 510(k) clearance requirements or determinations as a regulatory guide.

"If it is not good science and it does not make public health sense, we are not going to worry about contradicting our previous decisions," said Barbara Zimmerman, ODE's deputy director for Premarket Program Management.

Manufacturers often have used regulatory requirements for similar, previously cleared products as a roadmap for future studies and submissions. And to ensure a level playing field, CDRH leaders in the past have been wary of adjusting review standards without formal guidance or rulemaking.

Under FDA's new leadership, however, there is less reverence for prior decisions, Zimmerman said Dec. 9 at the LifeScience Alley annual meeting in Minneapolis.

"I have been in meetings where the argument being made is, 'you did it before; why can't you do it again?' I don't think that is going to be a viable argument in the coming days," Zimmerman said.

"Your argument should be based on the science and the public health's best interest. No matter what the previous decisions were, that should be the case you make, because that is what our leadership is now looking for."

Predictability Is Overarching Goal Of Reform

The shift is one tangible adjustment that has resulted so far from the center's ongoing self-scrutiny, focusing in particular on 510(k)s. Another change is that the center has tightened its procedures for resolving internal differences of opinion between reviewers and supervisors (The Gray Sheet' Oct. 19, 2009).

But with an internal 510(k) working group convening and an Institute of Medicine analysis of the program in the works, more reforms are coming (The Gray Sheet' Sept. 28, 2009).

Ultimately, Zimmerman says, the overarching goal of the efforts is to make the 510(k) process more, not less, predictable.

"Depending at what point in the [510(k)] flow chart you want to take a look at ... whether it is new indications for use, new intended use, new technological characteristics ... you can find an example where we have been inconsistent in the decisions that we have made," she acknowledges.

Precisely how the issue will be addressed remains to be seen.

One organizational reform being batted around by the internal working group is formation of a central group within ODE through which all 510(k) decisions would be filtered in order to make sure that they abide by consistent standards, according to Zimmerman.

The working group is also considering a range of other potential reforms related to how 510(k) reviews work, focusing on nearer-term changes that can be accomplished without the help of Congress. IOM, meanwhile, has a broader mandate to also consider needed legislative changes to the 510(k) standard.

Least Burdensome, Predicate Issues Under Review

FDA has not yet identified the changes that are on the table in any explicit terms. The agency will issue a Federal Register notice soon to schedule a public meeting and provide more details.

One topic being considered by the working group and others in CDRH is the concept of "least burdensome" - the somewhat ambiguous standard of device review codified by the FDA Modernization Act in 1997.

"I think 'least burdensome' is a challenge ... to define and implement," Zimmerman said. "Our committees are considering that. And clearly the agency does want to be least burdensome whenever it can."

But there are limits, she stressed. "For example, if you are asking to do a three-month animal study and FDA asks you to do a six-month study, well, of course, it is less burdensome to do a three-month study, but if we do not think the device is going to fail until six months, that is not scientifically valid."

Further, one subgroup of the 510(k) working group is targeting the issue of how to address new questions of safety and effectiveness that arise from new technologies.

Under the statute, a new device can be judged substantially equivalent to a predicate even if the new device has "different technological characteristics," as long as no new safety and effectiveness issues are raised and the device is at least as safe and effective as the predicate.

- David Filmore

Limited-time offer: Single-incision laparoscopy or natural orifice surgery: Which will win the day, or is there room for both? Are You Ready For The New Scarless Surgery Revolution? Download you FREE report now

To find out about more about more about Elsevier Business Intelligence's medical device publications and databases, multi-user access and/or advertising with Medical Devices Today, please contact Sean Smith at 240-221-4535 or se.smith@elsevier.com.