May 24, 2012

Is Quicker Really Better? The Overhaul of the 510(k) Process

On January 19, 2011, the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”) announced 25 steps it intends to take before year end to improve the agency’s 510(k) clearance program for medical devices.  The purpose of the program is to allow medical devices to be marketed if the applicant can show that the device is substantially equivalent to a device already on the market.      

In recent years, the FDA has come under increasing scrutiny by both medical device companies and outspoken critics who claimed the current process was inconsistent and slow, and has resulted in unsafe devices being cleared.  The newly released action items, selected from a broader group which included more controversial proposals, are intended to speed along the approval process for medical devices (with most devices being cleared in roughly five months), while maintaining a commitment to public safety. 

Action Items to be Completed before December 31, 2011:

1. The FDA will create Draft Guidance for each of the following, beginning June 15, 2011: 

            a. 510(k) Modifications;

            b. Clinical Trials;

            c. Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designations (De Novo);

            d. Standards;

            e. Appeals;

            f. 510(k) Paradigm;

            g. Pre-Submission Interactions; and

            h. Product Codes.

2.  Beginning March 31, 2011, the FDA will modify certain internal and administrative matters, including the establishment of a Center Science Council, the enhancement of training provided to its internal staff and the development of a network of external experts to leverage scientific expertise found in the outside marketplace.

3.  Also beginning March 31, 2011, the FDA will begin certain programmatic and regulatory initiatives to implement new programs and improve existing processes.  For example, a public meeting will be held on April 7th and 8th to provide additional information about the viewing of device photos in a public database without the disclosure of any unique proprietary information of the devices.

The Institute of Medicine (the “IOM”) is also conducting an independent evaluation of the process and will provide feedback to the FDA on certain controversial issues, including the scope and grounds for rescinding a 510(k) clearance, providing greater authority for postmarket surveillance, and providing clarification on when a device should no longer be available for use as a predicate.

Although early commentators are encouraged by the proposed changes, the action items are still only proposals, meaning the final look and operation of the 510(k) clearance process remain to be seen.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Associate

Melissa Turczyn is a member of the Business Law Practice Group and a member of the VentureBestSM Team. Ms. Turczyn is also a member of the firm’s Renewable Energy and Stimulus Legislation Teams.

608-257-7484

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.