Regulatory Open Forum

 View Only
  • 1.  Special PMA Supplement - Changes Being Effected §814.39(d)

    This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
    Posted 12-Apr-2022 11:41
    This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous

    Seeking opinions on eligibility of a change for the Changes Being Effected (CBE) route.

    I've been trying to convince my RA leadership that our change is eligible, but since our particular division within this large medical device manufacturer does not have prior history with this submission route, my leadership is leaning towards being conservative because they are afraid of "the optics" to our FDA reviewers of using this path. If not CBE, we'd have to submit as a Real-Time Review (and pay $26k and wait longer to implement). I have prior experience with two CBE submissions during my time in another division within this same company. I am a bit taken aback at the hesitancy of this division to utilize a pathway that I believe we are completely eligible for.  Here's the details:

    Product: PMA product (obviously).
    Change: Add a Caution statement to the IFU. Basically this statement is about potential harm in a certain scenario that could arise during use of the product, particularly for a subset of potential device users.
    Why: To meet requirements of a standard we claim compliance to (and claimed compliance in the Original PMA). This standard requires disclosure of this potential risk in the IFU. 

    This product has been on U.S. market for ~5 years. Only recently the company became aware that our contracted tester for this highly-relevant standard for our product misclassified the device component. The misclassification doesn't impact the testing conditions, the results, or the risk ratings (pre and post mitigation) for this particular harm. However, the reclassification into the correct category requires additional disclosures to the patient of the risk in certain situations in order to be compliant to the standard.

    Per the FDA website (and also our company's procedures which are based on FDA guidelines) this is what CBEs are [emphasis added where relevant]:
    • Special PMA Supplement -- Changes Being Effected - §814.39(d)
      • For any change that enhances the safety of the device or the safety in the use of the device.
      • For certain labeling and manufacturing changes that enhance the safety of the device or the safety in the use of the device.
      • May be placed into effect by the applicant prior to the receipt of a written FDA order approving the PMA supplement.

     

    The following changes are permitted [§814.39(d)(1)]:

    • labeling changes that add or strengthen a contraindication, warning, precaution, or information about an adverse reaction;
    • labeling changes that add or strengthen an instruction that is intended to enhance the safe use of the device;
    • labeling changes that delete misleading, false, or unsupported indications; and
    • changes in quality controls or the manufacturing process that add a new specification or test method, or otherwise provide additional assurance of purity, identity, strength, or reliability of the device.


    What are you thoughts on the eligibility of this change?  Please note - this change is not related to a recall, nor is it driven from a complaint-related process. It was driven from discovery of the component misclassification relative to a standard's category definitions during a file review and resulted in a CAPA.  


    Thanks.


  • 2.  RE: Special PMA Supplement - Changes Being Effected §814.39(d)

    Posted 12-Apr-2022 12:48

     

     

     

    Hi Anon,

     

    Seems to me that suitability of the CBE pathway hinges on whether the change improves compliance or patient safety.  If the latter, it clearly qualifies.

     

    What are the "optics" your leadership is concerned about?  I would tell them that improvements to patient safety should be carried out as quickly as possible.  This strikes me as a moral imperative. 

     

    If that reasoning isn't convincing, you could consider pointing out that if a patient is injured while the company is making the change via the slower pathway you will have greater liability exposure.

     

    Hope that's helpful.

     

    Best regards,

     

    Ted

     

     

     

     






  • 3.  RE: Special PMA Supplement - Changes Being Effected §814.39(d)

    Posted 13-Apr-2022 09:43
    I believe you are 100% correct that this qualifies as a CBE. I have done them for similar changes (some from complaints system and some from standards etc) several times.

    One thing I did find is that management often is concerned about implementing the change prior to having approval (for that matter so is FDA, but the process does allow it). Thus, at times my management has been far more comfortable if we do the CBE with a date in the future on which we plan to cut it in stated clearly in the submission. Even at that, you can always hold it until the FDA does approve it if you want to be very conservative and have no risks of requests for wording changes etc.

    Keep after it - you are doing it the "right way" trying to use the tools at your disposal to be complaint and save the company money.

    g-

    ------------------------------
    Ginger Glaser RAC
    Chief Technology Officer
    MN
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Special PMA Supplement - Changes Being Effected §814.39(d)

    This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
    Posted 13-Apr-2022 09:56
    This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous

    did the misclassification according to the standard result in any other actions to the product, or additions or changes to the product risk analysis ?


  • 5.  RE: Special PMA Supplement - Changes Being Effected §814.39(d)

    This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous
    Posted 13-Apr-2022 13:24
    This message was posted by a user wishing to remain anonymous

    Upon awareness of the misclassification, a nonconformance report was initiated. The Risk Management File for the product was evaluated. The risk in question was already acknowledged in the Risk file. The severity and probability ratings were not impacted as a result of the awareness of the misclassification.  However, there was residual risk before and still residual risk remained. To be compliant to the standard when component was properly classified, the residual risk was to be disclosed through adding to the labeling.

    So what was added/changed:
    1. Risk Management File updated to add to the "Disclosure of residual risk(s)" section that labeling will inform user of the risk.  



    And then obviously the labeling was updated to disclose the residual risk, but the labeling is still pending implementation as we don't have alignment on the submission route for approval yet. There were no other changes to the product or the documentation related to the product.