The FDA 510(k) clearance process is the most common regulatory pathway for medical devices. Since 2010, it has been at the forefront of regulatory policy discussion, with a multitude of stakeholders involved in a substantive exchange of ideas about the need and opportunities for improving the process and its implementation. This article is the second in a two-part series reporting the findings of a questionnaire-based assessment of recent industry experience with the 510(k) process. While the first article focused on findings directly relating to the medical device innovation process, this article reports more broadly on the findings and implications of interest to the medical community and policymakers. We discuss results in five key areas, ranging from the current performance of the 510(k) regulatory process to proposed changes and suggested performance metrics, and place identified challenges in perspective with ongoing and forthcoming FDA actions. Through the survey we also report on current trends in the amount of clinical evidence required by FDA for 510(k) devices and on the interactions between sponsors and the agency during various phases of clinical testing. The results suggest that significant opportunities exist for both industry and FDA to further improve the 510(k) process and the effectiveness of its implementation. Continued collection of process performance data can contribute to prioritizing suggested policy changes, and gauging their effects in a timely manner.
Skip Nav Destination
Stanford University Program in Biodesign,
James H. Clark Center,
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Article navigation
June 2013
Research-Article
Medical Device Innovators and the 510(k) Regulatory Pathway: Implications of a Survey-Based Assessment of Industry Experience—Part 2: Medical Device Ecosystem and Policy
Jan B. Pietzsch,
Stanford University Program in Biodesign,
James H. Clark Center,
e-mail: [email protected]
Jan B. Pietzsch
Wing Tech Inc.
,42808 Christy Street, Suite 230
,Fremont, CA 94538
;Stanford University Program in Biodesign,
James H. Clark Center,
Stanford University
,318 Campus Drive, E-100
,Stanford, CA 94305-5428
e-mail: [email protected]
Search for other works by this author on:
Marta G. Zanchi,
e-mail: [email protected]
Marta G. Zanchi
Medinnovo LLC
,333 West Santa Clara Street
,San Jose, CA 95113
;Wing Tech Inc.
,42808 Christy Street, Suite 230
,Fremont, CA 94538
e-mail: [email protected]
Search for other works by this author on:
John H. Linehan
John H. Linehan
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science,
James H. Clark Center,
e-mail: [email protected]
Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science,
Northwestern University
,2145 Sheridan Road
,Evanston, IL 60208
;Stanford University Program in Biodesign
,James H. Clark Center,
Stanford University
,318 Campus Drive, E-100
,Stanford, CA 94305-5428
e-mail: [email protected]
Search for other works by this author on:
Jan B. Pietzsch
Wing Tech Inc.
,42808 Christy Street, Suite 230
,Fremont, CA 94538
;Stanford University Program in Biodesign,
James H. Clark Center,
Stanford University
,318 Campus Drive, E-100
,Stanford, CA 94305-5428
e-mail: [email protected]
Marta G. Zanchi
Medinnovo LLC
,333 West Santa Clara Street
,San Jose, CA 95113
;Wing Tech Inc.
,42808 Christy Street, Suite 230
,Fremont, CA 94538
e-mail: [email protected]
John H. Linehan
Department of Biomedical Engineering,
Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science,
James H. Clark Center,
e-mail: [email protected]
Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science,
Northwestern University
,2145 Sheridan Road
,Evanston, IL 60208
;Stanford University Program in Biodesign
,James H. Clark Center,
Stanford University
,318 Campus Drive, E-100
,Stanford, CA 94305-5428
e-mail: [email protected]
Manuscript received May 23, 2012; final manuscript received November 21, 2012; published online June 24, 2013. Editor: Gerald E. Miller.
J. Med. Devices. Jun 2013, 7(2): 021003 (5 pages)
Published Online: June 24, 2013
Article history
Received:
May 23, 2012
Revision Received:
November 21, 2012
Citation
Pietzsch, J. B., Zanchi, M. G., and Linehan, J. H. (June 24, 2013). "Medical Device Innovators and the 510(k) Regulatory Pathway: Implications of a Survey-Based Assessment of Industry Experience—Part 2: Medical Device Ecosystem and Policy." ASME. J. Med. Devices. June 2013; 7(2): 021003. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023131
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Cited By
A Portable Aspiration-Assisted Device for End-Cut Prostate Biopsy of Large Tissue Sample
J. Med. Devices (June 2025)
Paper errata statement
J. Med. Devices
Related Articles
Children and Adults With Rare Diseases Need Innovative Medical Devices
J. Med. Devices (September,2018)
Changes to the International Regulatory Environment
J. Med. Devices (June,2012)
Innovation and Design: Pollution Prevention Opportunities in Medical Device Design
J. Med. Devices (June,2009)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Regulatory perspectives
Biocompatible Nanomaterials for Targeted and Controlled Delivery of Biomacromolecules
Regulation of Vascular Grafts
Vascular Graft Update: Safety and Performance
A Human Reliability-Centered Approach to the Development of Job Aids for Reviewers of Medical Devices That Use Radiological Byproduct Materials (PSAM-0299)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)