Regulatory Open Forum

 View Only
Expand all | Collapse all

Blue LED Light Device

  • 1.  Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 10-Apr-2018 14:43
    Team,

    We are in the process of creating a device that has blue light.  Management wants to steer away from any medical claims whatsoever and would like to remain cosmetic in nature.  Does a device containing blue light, even with no medical claims, still require FDA approval?  Does the fact that it has blue light make it a medical device? I know that blue light is used in the treatment of acne, but if we were to not mention any medical benefit, would that keep us in the clear? 

    Please advise.


    Thanks,
    Laura

    ------------------------------
    Laura HoShue
    Regulatory Compliance Specialist
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    USA
    ------------------------------


  • 2.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 10-Apr-2018 17:39
    ​Hi Laura,

    I don't have experience with that type of product, but my instinct would be that the designation of medical device would be based on its application and how it is being labeled/promoted, rather than the components that the product is made from, e.g. LED.

    https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/ucm051512.htm

    If a product is labeled, promoted or used in a manner that meets the following definition in section 201(h) of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) Act it will be regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medical device and is subject to premarketing and postmarketing regulatory controls. A device is:"an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent, or other similar or related article, including a component part, or accessory which is:
    1. recognized in the official National Formulary, or the United States Pharmacopoeia, or any supplement to them,
    2. intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, in man or other animals, or
    3. intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals, and which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and

    which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of man or other animals and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended purposes. The term "device" does not include software functions excluded pursuant to section 520(o).

    Interested to hear if there are any alternative viewpoints out there!
    Liz




    ------------------------------
    Elizabeth Goldstein RAC
    Regulatory Affairs
    United States
    ------------------------------



  • 3.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 10-Apr-2018 19:38
    Edited by Kevin Randall 10-Apr-2018 19:39
    Laura and ​Liz are both on track and asking the right questions.  Here are a few additional points to consider:

    Generally speaking, if product claims/advertising remain within the cosmetic boundaries of section 201(i) of the FD&C Act, then it can often be regulated as a cosmetic, not a device.  In fact, I have a 'device-turned-cosmetic' client who was cited in an unexpected FDA medical device inspection for failing to meet medical device requirements after making therapeutic claims.  The product consists of a combination of liquid solutions rubbed on the skin and a machine used for application.  Moreover, the machine component is actually a repurposed medical device whose inherent characteristics are often regulated as medical device features.  But after negotiations with FDA and revision of the advertising literature, FDA accepted the re-categorization of the product (skin solutions and the machine) as a cosmetic.  So that kind of general precedent exists.

    However, my prior experience analyzing the FDA regulatory and 510(k) requirements of blue-light-emitting devices leads me to believe that a blue-light-emitting instrument could be inherently disqualified from being regulated as a cosmetic, consequently requiring regulation as a medical device.  My sense on this is based on blue light's inherent effect on the body, and/or its inherent risks, combined with the intent of section 201(h)(3) of the FD&C Act (aforementioned by Liz).  Specifically, my understanding is that blue light often results in skin redness or scaliness likened to a sunburn, where the presence of prior skin damage can worsen these effects, sometimes even causing significant burning or discomfort in the treated area.  Such inherent characteristics may cause FDA to inherently regulate blue-light-emitting instruments as medical devices.  If not, it would need to be supported by a proper risk analysis systematically and methodically confirming that no such risks exist.



    We've seen FDA take similar stances with non-medical products before.  For example, theatrical/cosmetic contact lenses have no therapeutic effect, yet are nonetheless regulated by FDA as medical devices due to their inherent risk profile.

     

    Perhaps other Forum members can help confirm the issue. But for conclusive direction and to know the ground rules before making too much of an investment, affected firm's should consider contacting the responsible FDA Branch Chief (Neil Ogden) in FDA's CDRH ODE Division of Surgical Devices, General Surgery Devices Branch One.  Or submit a well-written 513(g) request.

     

    By the way, to give some additional background, here is the usual FDA classification regulation and a couple product codes thereunder that are typically applied by FDA for blue-light devices:

     

    • 21 CFR 878.4810, "Laser surgical instrument for use in general and plastic surgery and in dermatology":
      • Product Code ONE (powered Light Based non-laser Surgical Instrument)
      • Product Code ONF (powered light based non-laser surgical instrument with thermal effect)
      

    Notice my emphasis added, where non-laser (e.g., LED) devices are lumped by FDA under the laser regulation even though these are not lasers.

     

    Hope this helps,

    ------------------------------
    Kevin Randall, ASQ CQA, RAC (U.S., Canada, Europe)
    Principal Consultant
    ComplianceAcuity, Inc.
    Golden CO
    United States
    www.complianceacuity.com
    © Copyright 2018 by ComplianceAcuity, Inc. All rights reserved.
    ------------------------------



  • 4.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 11-Apr-2018 06:50
    I agree with Kevin and Liz, regardless of the "wink wink" we make no claims, the product will be viewed as being inherently a device because of its similarities with other product that are marketed as devices with comparable characteristics.  In other words, it doesn't pass the "smell" test.  If other products are marketed as devices and have similar characteristics, then why would this product be different?

    James






  • 5.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 11-Apr-2018 11:07
    Thank you all for the feedback.  As is always the case, Management does not want to file this as a device and I have advised them that the only way to do so is to NOT make any medical claims.  I too thought that as long as it makes no medical claims, then it would be regulated as a cosmetic.  That said, I agree that the impression to FDA is that it would be a medical device because of what Blue LED Light can do to the body. Ughhhh.  

    I thank you all as always for such great feedback.  


    Thank you,
    Laura

    ------------------------------
    Laura HoShue
    Regulatory Compliance Specialist
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    USA
    ------------------------------



  • 6.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 12-Apr-2018 10:32

    Dear Laura,

    I have experience with Blue LED devices, and I agree with what Kevin and James said.

    The mechanism of action of this device, the actual clinical outcome and the risk profile will, to my best understanding cause the FDA to regulate it as medical devices (class II, ONF).

    Also, as mentioned before there are many home-use blue LED devices cleared in the US market, probably with very similar technology characteristics to the device that your company develops which will limit your ability to claim that it is not a medical device.

    And just as a note regarding markets outside the US; the new Medical Device Regulations (MDR) in Europe includes clarification regarding this group of medical devices for aesthetic or another non-medical purpose :

     "Certain groups of products for which a manufacturer claims only an aesthetic or another non-medical purpose

    but which are similar to medical devices in terms of functioning and risks profile should be covered by this ANNEX XVI"

    Meaning these devices should be regulated under the medical device regulation.

    So even in a market that was more "forgiving" regarding the ability to classify your device as a "non-medical" equipment is now switching to a more conservative approach.

     

    Best regards,

    Tal



    ------------------------------
    Tal Bresler, PhD.RAC

    Toronto, On, Canada
    tal.bresler@gmail.com
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/talbresler/
    ------------------------------



  • 7.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 13-Apr-2018 15:00
    Tal,

    Thank you for such great information.  I neglected to mention in my initial query, that there is a barrier and that the device itself will NOT have direct contact with the skin and should only be as an "assist" with the barrier.  

    Perhaps this helps a bit in minimizing or omitting the risk?


    Thanks,
    Laura 





  • 8.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 17-Apr-2018 09:59

    Thank you for clarifying, I would say that in this case, the devil is in the detail.
    There is no simple answer, but the main questions you need to ask yourself are the mechanism of action and risk profile along with the real intended use and claims.
    Whatever the outcome of this query is, make sure that you document the rationale for the regulatory classification very well since as mentioned above the FDA might question the legitimacy of classify this device as cosmetics. 
    Good luck!
    Tal



    ------------------------------
    Tal Bresler, PhD.RAC

    Toronto, On, Canada
    tal.bresler@gmail.com
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/talbresler/
    ------------------------------



  • 9.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 14-Apr-2018 06:28
    If your product does fall under medical device under the FDA then you will need to meet a list of standards for electrical medical devices including such standards as:
    IEC 60601-1 (for FDA AAMI ES60601-1),
    IEC 60601-1-2 (EMC),
    IEC 60601-1-11 (Home Use),
    IEC 62366-1 (& if go thru a test house for a CB scheme then IEC 60601-1-6 & IEC 62366 - I don't recommend CB scheme unless there is a specific need), 
    IEC 62304,
    Etc.

    Also, there are multiple Guidances that would also apply.

    If wireless there are a couple more standards and also another Guidance to follow.

    ------------------------------
    Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
    Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
    Phone: (503) 244-6151
    Mobile: (503) 709-8328
    Email: Leo@EisnerSafety.com
    Website: www.EisnerSafety.com
    ------------------------------



  • 10.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 15-Apr-2018 08:24
    Hi Leonard

    CB scheme testing makes global registrations easier, except in countries still requiring in-country testing.

    Ginger Cantor, MBA, RAC
    Centaur Consulting LLC centaurconsultingllc@gmail.com





  • 11.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 16-Apr-2018 13:20
    Team,

    All great feedback and much appreciated.  To date we are not making any medical claims, no cutting, coagulating, removal etc. of wrinkles etc., just as an assist with applying the "barrier" and for use as a beauty regimen.  As a system, and in and of itself, there are medical or therapeutic benefits or claims.  As is always the case, the feedback is highly appreciated and much welcomed.  I am learning so much about these devices that fall outside the scope of dental implants, and while challenging, I welcome the experience and your very insightful feedback.


    Regards,
    Laura 





  • 12.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 18-Apr-2018 07:41
    All,
    I understand that some of you look at CB scheme differently than I do so I want to clarify and hopefully this matches up with those with different opinions about CB scheme making regulatory submissions easier.

    Most good test labs issue CB scheme reports as a course of doing business for no extra cost.  But they don't issue a CB scheme test certificate and official CB Scheme report unless the clients pays for it and requests it.  The CB scheme costs extra money, has yearly costs for the certificates and every third change of the report has additional cost of reissuing the whole report.  So, the cost can be significant.  The reports (or TRF = Test Report Form = CB report without being officially for CB scheme) contents should be the same either way if you pay for the CB scheme report & certificate or not.   From what I have heard (I don't have definitive proof) only 2 countries regulators require the official CB reports with the CB issued test certificate.  Most test labs in the CB scheme already do testing based on CB scheme normative requirements per CB scheme OD-2055 edition 2.1 (May 2017) specific to Annex C (related to IEC 60601-1, ed. 3.1) which identifies which collateral & some related standards (IEC 62366 & IEC 62304) are required for a CB Test Report and CB Certificate. 

    So, bottom line unless you are going to the 2 countries (I have been trying to confirm this detail) that require a CB certificate and CB report you don't need the CB scheme certificate as you will already get the completed TRF(s) (CB scheme style test reports) which satisfies most regulators, including FDA.  I know about the FDA and their understanding as I have provided them a couple trainings & have had multiple discussions with them, in the last couple month, on lab testing & test focused on standards updates, the TRF test reports they review for the IEC 60601 series of standards, essential performance per IEC 60601-1, and the ASCA program Public Workshop - Accreditation Scheme for Conformity Assessment (ASCA) of Medical Devices to FDA-Recognized Standards, May 22-23, 2018.  

    All the best,

    ------------------------------
    Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
    Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
    Phone: (503) 244-6151
    Mobile: (503) 709-8328
    Email: Leo@EisnerSafety.com
    Website: www.EisnerSafety.com
    ------------------------------



  • 13.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 10-Jan-2020 08:22
    Hi Leonard,

    We are in the process of getting our medical device tested under CB Scheme. 
    I have a question regarding your above remark "IEC 62366-1 (& if go through a test house for a CB scheme then IEC 60601-1-6 & IEC 62366 - I don't recommend CB scheme unless there is a specific need), May I know the reason, please?

    Also, if the device is tested under CB scheme, is that report acceptable for CE marking in EU?

    Thanks!

    Regards,



    ------------------------------
    Soumya Rajesh
    Quality and Regulatory Affairs Manager
    Den Haag
    Netherlands
    ------------------------------



  • 14.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 11-Jan-2020 01:26
    In reply to your question why I said "IEC 62366-1 (& if go through a test house for a CB scheme then IEC 60601-1-6 & IEC 62366 - I don't recommend CB scheme unless there is a specific need)" was because in the context of that reply in the forum back in early April I was talking about an FDA submission and for FDA you need IEC 62366-1 and for CB scheme that is not a possibility at this point in time and won't be an option for at least another year (my estimate) or more til IEC 60601-1, edition 3.2 is released as a standard about mid this year and then the CB scheme test lab that is in charge of the IEC TRF (test report form) for IEC 62366 will update the TRF for IEC 62366-1 will it be issued and then there may also be an OD-XXXX (operational document) be issued to explain what is needed as instructions to test labs as how to use the new TRF and fill it out properly.  I am on the CB Scheme Risk Management Group under CTL ETF3 is why I am so familiar with this process.  I am a consultant and not a test lab employee which is the typical member of this group.




    ------------------------------
    Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
    The "IEC 60601 Guy"
    Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
    Phone: (503) 244-6151
    Mobile: (503) 709-8328
    Email: Leo@EisnerSafety.com
    Website: www.EisnerSafety.com
    ------------------------------



  • 15.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 11-Jan-2020 01:29
    I forgot to mention that in IEC 60601-1, edition 3.1 and IEC 60601-1 only references IEC 62366 and not IEC 62366-1 so the CB scheme can't test or confirm to IEC 62366-1.  That is why you will need to wait til IEC 60601-1, edition 3.2 and the updated IEC 60601-1-6 that will both reference the updated IEC 62366-1 and then CB will update their TRFs and will update procedures and processes as applicable but may take time to propagate thru their systems and to the test labs and thru training of the test lab personnel.

    ------------------------------
    Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
    The "IEC 60601 Guy"
    Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
    Phone: (503) 244-6151
    Mobile: (503) 709-8328
    Email: Leo@EisnerSafety.com
    Website: www.EisnerSafety.com
    ------------------------------



  • 16.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 13-Jan-2020 10:38
    Thanks, Leonard for your valuable feedback!
    I also would like to know if the CB Test reports are accepted for conformity assessments by Notified Body in the EU? I assume the report will call for the "IEC " version and not "EN-ISO".

    Regards,

    ------------------------------
    Soumya Rajesh
    Quality and Regulatory Affairs Manager
    Den Haag
    Netherlands
    ------------------------------



  • 17.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 14-Jan-2020 01:54
    Notified Bodies should accept CB Scheme test reports from test labs.  The CB Report base TRF are based on the IEC version of the standards.  But there are national deviations TRFs that can be considered for certain countries being: US, Canada, and Japan.   Israel & UK have regulatory differences but there are no existing TRFs so this doesn't do any good as the Test Labs can't document.  What most manufacturers state in there Essential Requirements Matrix or Checklist is they state the EU Harmonized Standards or the EU State of the Art Standards (such as EN 60601-1:2006 + A1:2013) they are using and then in the ER Matrix or Checklist for each ER identifying the applicable standards that apply (such as EN 60601-1) with the reference to the Test Lab test report as your verification test report.



    ------------------------------
    Leonard (Leo) Eisner, P.E.
    The "IEC 60601 Guy"
    Principal Consultant, Eisner Safety Consultants
    Phone: (503) 244-6151
    Mobile: (503) 709-8328
    Email: Leo@EisnerSafety.com
    Website: www.EisnerSafety.com
    ------------------------------



  • 18.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 19-Apr-2018 14:15
    ​​Whether any contraption is or is not a medical device has nothing to do with the type of technology involved, nor in the level of risk posed to users.  It is ALL about intended use.

    If the system is a medical device, and this device just "assists," is it possible you are making an accessory to a medical device?

    ------------------------------
    Julie Omohundro, ex-RAC (US, GS), still an MBA
    Principal Consultant
    Class Three, LLC
    Durham, North Carolina, USA
    919-544-3366 (T)
    434-964-1614 (C)
    julie@class3devices.com
    ------------------------------



  • 19.  RE: Blue LED Light Device

    Posted 19-Apr-2018 18:20
    My two cents, if management really wants to pursue the cosmetic route. Are you aware of the minimal therapeutic energy density to have a medical effect? There is much literature in this area and a deep survey of the predicates may show a minimal energy density for therapeutic effect. 

    In general, I agree with the consensus above. It will be difficult to be a cosm

    ------------------------------
    Timothy Kline, Ph.D., RAC, Associate Manager Regulatory Affairs
    ------------------------------