Medical device regulation plays a significant role in promoting and protecting the public health. But the regulatory process and its requirements also exercise substantial influence over the design, development, and commercialization of new medical technologies. In recent months, FDA’s premarket notification (510(k)) process, through which the majority of medical devices are cleared to the market, has been at the forefront of policy discussions, and efforts are continuing to further analyze and strengthen the process. In this paper, we report findings from our recently completed, comprehensive, industry-wide survey to provide input and perspective for the current discussions about changes to the 510(k) process. The findings reported here focus on five aspects of the 510(k) process with principal relevance to medical technology developers and innovators: predictability of the process, impact of regulatory requirements, role of guidance documents, interaction with FDA, and international comparisons. The results confirm the substantial influence of regulatory requirements on investment decisions and development priorities. The data suggest that improvement of regulatory process predictability needs to be a top priority for all stakeholders – especially FDA. Increasing the number of guidance documents available to industry, and ensuring that their content is timely updated to reflect current FDA thinking, could be one way to achieve this goal. Consistent implementation of the regulatory process and enhanced communications between sponsors and the agency could further contribute to improvements, along with efforts to provide additional training opportunities for reviewers and industry personnel. The survey data suggest that small companies, when compared to large companies, are particularly challenged by the current process, and should therefore receive particular attention in any reform and improvement efforts.

References

References
1.
Pietzsch
,
J. B.
, and
Pate-Cornell
,
M. E.
, 2008, “
Early Technology Assessment of New Medical Devices
,”
Int. J. Technol. Assess Health Care
,
24
(
1
), pp.
36
44
.
2.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010, “
Premarket Notification (510k)
,” http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketNotification510k/default.htm
3.
GAO, 2009, “
FDA Should Take Steps to Ensure That High-Risk Device Types are Approved Through the Most Stringent Premarket Review Process
,” Report No. GAO-09-190.
4.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2011, “
21 CFR § 807.81 (a)(3), in Part 807 – Establishment Registration and Device Listing for Manufacturers and Initial Importers of Devices
,” http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=807.81
5.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2012, “
Premarket Notification 510(k)
,” http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/PremarketNotification510k/default.htm
6.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2009, “
510(k) Substantial Equivalence Decision Making Process Flow Chart Detailed
,” http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM081395.pdf
7.
H.R. Rep. No. 11124, 94th Cong. 2d Sess, at 121976.
8.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2012, “
510(k) Premarket Notification Database
,” http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
9.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2012, “
Product Classification Database
,” http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
10.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010, “
The New 510(k) Paradigm, Alternate Approaches to Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications - Final Guidance
,” http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm080187.htm
11.
Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, 1996, 21 CFR Parts 808, 812, and 820 Medical Devices; Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP); Final Rule.
12.
Pietzsch
,
J.
,
Shluzas
,
L.
,
Paté-Cornell
,
M.
,
Yock
,
P.
, and
Linehan
J.
, 2009, “
Stage-Gate Process for the Development of Medical Devices
,”
J. Med. Devices
,
3
(
2
),
021004
.
13.
Institute of Medicine, 2010, “
Public Health Effectiveness of the FDA 510(k) Clearance Process: Balancing Patient Safety and Innovation: Workshop Report
,” http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12960.
14.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2010, “
510(k) Working Group Preliminary Report and Recommendations: FDA, CDRH Preliminary Internal Evaluations, Volume I
,” http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHReports/UCM220784.pdf?utm_campaign=Google2&utm_source=fdaSearch&utm_medium=website&utm_term=510(k) Working group preliminary report and recommendations&utm_content=1
15.
Hall
,
R. F.
, and
Stensvad
,
E.
, 2011, “
A Failure to Comply: An Initial Assessment of Gaps in IOM’s Medical Device Study Committee
,”
Minn. J. Law Sci. Tech.
,
12
(
2
), pp.
E1
E18
. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1889244.
16.
Makower
,
J.
,
Meer
,
A.
, and
Denend
,
L.
, 2010, “
FDA Impact on Medical Technology Innovation - A Survey of Over 200 Medical Technology Companies
,” http://www.nvca.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid= 668&Itemid=93
17.
Battelle Memorial Institute, 2010, “
510(k) Premarket Notification Evaluation 2010
,” http://www.advamed.org/NR/rdonlyres/255F9405-677D-45B1-BAC8-0D4FD5017054/0/510kPremarketNotificationEvaluation.pdf
18.
Institute of Medicine, 2011, “
Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years
,” http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13150
19.
European Commission
, 1990, “
Council Directive 90/385/EEC on Active Implantable Medical Devices (AIMDD)
,”
Official Journal of the European Communities
,
33
,
L
189
.
20.
European Commission
, 1993, “
Council Directive 93/42/EEC on Medical Devices (MDD) Instituted by the European Commission
,”
Official Journal of the European Communities
,
36
,
L
169
.
21.
European Commission
, 1998, “
Council Directive 98/79/EC on In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices (IVDD)
,”
Official Journal of the European Communities
,
41
,
L
331
.
22.
Linehan
,
J. L.
, and
Pietzsch
,
J. B.
, “
A Comprehensive Analysis of the FDA 510(k) Process
,” National Press Club briefing, May 24, 2011. Available at: http://www.510k.net/resources/Linehan+Pietzsch+-+NU+NPC+510$28k$29+slides.pdfhttp://www.510k.net/resources/Linehan+Pietzsch+-+NU+NPC+510$28k$29+slides.pdf.
You do not currently have access to this content.