SBS - The best value in QMS software

Adverse Event Clinical Trial using a 510K approved Device

Ed Panek

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Trusted Information Resource
#1
#1
After years of trying to find a home for our continuous temperature monitoring device, it has found a home with CAR-T and numerous pharma companies from the USA and EU. The FDA has demanded the CAR-T trials to use a preventive measure to document cytokine release syndrome (creates dangerous fever) which is an expected outcome of CAR-T treatment and indicates the therapy is working. The more soft tumor mass the greater the immune response which is somewhat paradoxical. The risk of identifying and responding to a fever from CRS is critical and a high% of patients die (based on the pharma companies data) when CRS is not detected early enough. So, the fever itself is a good indication but it does need to be controlled; this makes our device a perfect fit.

In our agreements, we discuss adverse event reporting. Our 510K indicates our device is usable by all people of all ages.

In the event of a reportable event, who and how should it be reported to FDA?
 
Standard Work Instruction Software by Dozuki
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
I

indubioush

Quite Involved in Discussions
#2
#2
You are required to submit a medical device report if your device caused or contributed to a patient death or serious injury. If your device functioned normally but the patient still died from the treatment, you would not be required to submit a report because your device did not contribute. The drug manufacturer will be required to report though. If I were you, I would review your risk management documentation and ensure your have done adequate analysis on use errors. You may get into the situation where the drug manufacturer claims that a foreseeable use error contributed to patient harm. In this case, it would be best to err on the side of caution and submit a report.
 
Watchcat

Watchcat

Trusted Information Resource
#3
#3
I'm not sure I'm following you. Your device will be used to measure drug efficacy, right? The pharma companies will sponsor the trials, which will be conducted under an IND? And this use is consistent with your cleared 510(k), so you won't need an IDE?

If all of the above is correct...

The pharma company will be required to report AEs occurring in their drug trial, by way of their IND. I don't think this will satisfy MDR requirements.

I would treat each AE as a "complaint" and investigate it like any other complaint, and then submit an MDR if your investigation determines one is warranted. (Your investigation might establish that your device didn't contribute, but I think you still need to investigate to establish this.) I would NOT have the pharma company submit an MDR report. However, the "device user facility" might feel obligated to report some of the events, although since your device is being used in a trial, they might not connect those dots. Regardless, if they submit an MDR, then I would deal with it just like any other MDR submitted by a user facility.

Make any sense?
 
Ed Panek

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Trusted Information Resource
#4
#4
Yes, thanks! Our 510k is for all users and all ages. This specific IND involves a special classification of the user (soft tissue cancer patients). I do have some worries though. For example, its possible these users are prescribed Thiotepa, which makes skin more sensitive and can cause a rash - we have had a complaint for a rash and the root cause was Thiotepa use. We do list mild rash as possible side effect of use though.
 
Last edited:
Watchcat

Watchcat

Trusted Information Resource
#5
#5
I think you might have some problems with intended use. There is a difference between "all users and all ages" and unspecified users and/or ages. You can get a device cleared as a "general" surgical tool for whatever type of surgery the surgeon chooses and/or as a tool for a specific type of surgery, which would of course be a subset of whatever type of surgery the surgeon chooses, but these are two different clearances. Have you run into this little regulatory quirk before?
 
Last edited:
Ed Panek

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Trusted Information Resource
#6
#6
No. One of the items in our SoWs with the pharma companies is regulatory assistance and I think this is going to come up.

Thanks!
 
Watchcat

Watchcat

Trusted Information Resource
#7
#7
I think it's logically snarly, but then I think the 510(k) is logically snarly, so big surprise. I actually ran into the same issue with an NB review of a Class III design dossier, but the discussion wasn't burdened with the notion of substantial equivalence, so it was considerably less snarly.

What I've worked out in my head is that it's about how aggressive your claims are, versus the data you have to support them. For example, when you tell surgeons a device is a tool for "whatever," you are essentially spinning a softer version of caveat emptor, in that the surgeons are (or should be) aware that the decision is on them, and that you don't have enough data to support safety and effectiveness of any specific use a surgeon might come up with. However, if you promote it for a more specific use, then you should have data to support that specific use, because then surgeons will think (in theory, like they really think about these things) that you do, and therefore do not think about whether it is likely to be a good idea. Plus, that specific use could be riskier than "whatever" use. In this case...cancer, high risk, usually a given.

The more practical question is when and how you might address this. I think you would like to actively promote use of the device to monitor efficacy in these types of trials? I don't think you are planning to promote it for this use in clinical practice? In any case, sounds like you might need an IDE. Next question is, are subjects at risk if your device doesn't turn out to be as effective in monitoring drug efficacy as everyone might have hoped, or is this one question that the trial will try to answer? If the former, full IDE, I would think. If the latter, maybe an abbreviated IDE, if you can find an IRB that won't just be hopelessly confused by the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N New MEDDEV 2.7/3 Guideline: Clinical Investigations: Serious Adverse Event Reporting EU Medical Device Regulations 4
A Recall/Adverse event report procedures in Kuwait/Qatar/Kenya Other Medical Device and Orthopedic Related Topics 3
L Adverse Event Reporting New Zealand Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 11
M Informational New Zealand – Changes to Medical Device Adverse Event Reporting process Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational IMDRF proposed document – IMDRF terminologies for categorized Adverse Event Reporting (AER): terms, terminology structure and codes (Edition 4) – Anne Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
S Adverse Event and Serious Adverse Event Reporting - Korea Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 4
I Adverse Event Reported during Non-Approved Indication Use EU Medical Device Regulations 4
J Japan AE (Adverse Event) Reporting Requirements Japan Medical Device Regulations 5
A Accessing Medical Device Adverse Event databases in EU CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 7
R Reporting Times & Requirements for when an Adverse Event has occurred (Japan) Japan Medical Device Regulations 3
S AHWP Guidance on Adverse Event Reporting for Comments Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
M Major Revision to FDA Adverse Event Reporting Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
S Singapore - Revised Adverse Event reporting and FSCA Reporting Guidance Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
J Adverse Event Reporting Flowchart (US) - feedback appreciated! Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
J Adverse Event Reporting Flowchart (EU) - feedback appreciated! EU Medical Device Regulations 4
J Flowchart for Canadian Adverse Event Reporting - feedback appreciated! Canada Medical Device Regulations 3
B Looking for Adverse Event guidance US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 7
V Where do I find Adverse Event Database for Medical Devices? Quality Manager and Management Related Issues 2
bio_subbu GHTF issues guidance on Adverse Event Data Reporting Standard Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 0
E Taiwan Medical Device Adverse Event Reporting Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 6
D Criteria for Reportable Event vs. Adverse Event in Device Studies US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 9
C Adverse Event Reporting in Japan Japan Medical Device Regulations 8
bio_subbu OIG Reports on Medical Device Adverse Event Reporting system 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
Q Determining Adverse Effects of Corrective/Preventive Actions ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
M CER Adverse events - Justification of databases searched EU Medical Device Regulations 5
M Informational US FDA paper – Epidemiological Evidence on the Adverse Health Effects Reports in Relation to Mercury from Dental Amalgam: Systematic Literature Review Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
T MDR Adverse Events Assessments - What qualifications are required? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 3
A Japan's Requirements for Reporting Medical Device Adverse Events Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
Q U.S. Agents - Responsibility for reporting adverse events to the FDA Other US Medical Device Regulations 10
I Where to submit Adverse Events Reports in Europe EU Medical Device Regulations 7
N Reason for determining no adverse effect on reworked product ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
S FDA terms - Adverse Events, Medical Device Reporting, MAUDE and Customer Complaints US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
Q Documenting the Review of Adverse Effects from Rework ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
B Adverse Events and Product Recalls - Example forms and procedures wanted 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P Control of "manufacturing material" that has adverse effect on the medical device? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
P Adverse Effects caused by Manufacturing Material of Medical Devices Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
D Subtleties of Adverse Events - How should it be captured and handled in the trial? Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
Q Supplier Audit Nonconformance: What if they adverse its certified QMS? General Auditing Discussions 12
M When to file MDR - Significant Adverse Device Experience 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
M Evaluating adverse effect on device tested with out of tolerance instrument General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
R Should I be notifying the FDA of adverse effects (per 21 CFR 803)? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
M Recurrent event analysis software (python) General Auditing Discussions 2
N "Placing on the market" & "putting into service"- one time regulatory event or Continual supply event? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
J Reportable Event for a Medical Device? Opinions welcomed. 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
Sidney Vianna IATF 16949 News Presentations from the latest IATF Stakeholder Event - Expectation that IATF 16949 certification should equate with product quality. Misguided? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
M Informational ANVISA – Aberta inscrição para evento sobre dispositivos médicos (ANVISA medical devices day event) Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
A EC declaration of conformity - In the event clients ask for a copy CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 12
M Informational Update from GOV.UK – Regulating medical devices in the event of a no-deal Brexit – UK Responsible Person Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
M Informational UK – Regulating medical devices in the event of a no deal scenario Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
C EPA NPDES VISUAL ASSESSMENT - No Significant Storm Event ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 0

Similar threads

Top Bottom