Demonstrating Substantial Equivalence - Requesting 510(k) data from company

M

Matthias

#1
Hi there,

I have a question about how one acquires data to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of your device to the chosen predicate.

This quote from the 510k statement:
" I will make available all information included in this premarket notification on safety and effectiveness within 30 days of request by any ..."
found in the FDA software review document.

This would seem to indicate that by submitting a device for 510k approval you agree to provide the non commercially sensitive parts of that document to any company that requests it for use in their substantial equivalence submission.

Do i understand this correctly?
In which case the normal process would be to identify a suitable predicate device and then contact the company responsible with a request for their 510k submission data, minus commercially sensitive portions of course.

Also, why is this statement only necessary in statement and not a summary, does this have an impact on ones obligation to make the data available to a third party?

Many thanks

Mat
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
M

MIREGMGR

#2
Re: demonstrating substantial equivalence - requesting 510k data from company

This would seem to indicate that by submitting a device for 510k approval you agree to provide the non commercially sensitive parts of that document to any company that requests it for use in their substantial equivalence submission.
I think that's an overly broad interpretation. I wouldn't expect to get a significantly different level of information from the filer of a Statement-type 510(k) than you would see in the Summary filed with a 510(k) for a similar product.
 
M

Matthias

#3
Thank you for the response.

I guess my confusion lies the the detail and volume of data one needs to submit to satisfactorily demonstrate substantial equivalence to a 510k review panel.

If you look at 510k summaries the most you get is a sentence saying; "out device x is very similar to their device y" and perhaps a comparison table with a list of device features.

Since you cannot establish:

  • has the same intended use as the predicate; and
  • has the same technological characteristics as the predicate;
    or
  • has the same intended use as the predicate; and
  • has different technological characteristics and the information submitted to FDA;
    • does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness; and
    • demonstrates that the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device”
Then I am choosing to read some significance into the 510k statement which says:
......... The information I agree to make available will be a duplicate of the premarket notification submission, including any adverse safety and effectiveness information, but excluding all patient identifiers, and trade secret and confidential commercial information...................
So I can well imagine that what i receive will be greatly stripped down from the full 510k submission, but it should have a lot more detail than the 510k summary.

Am I correct in my assumption, and if not then how can one possibly demonstrate the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device?

Also, back to the question of statement and summaries; is only one type obligated to provide information, or are both types regadless of apparent wording?

Many thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

MIREGMGR

#4
So I can well imagine that what i receive will be greatly stripped down from the full 510k submission, but it should have a lot more detail than the 510k summary.

Am I correct in my assumption (
In my experience, no. Practically everyone considers providing any more information than the minimum required by regulation and established practice to be helpful to their present and future competitors...and of course your intent validates that obvious conclusion. The "trade secret" clause provides a justification for a minimum approach.

(...) if not then how can one possibly demonstrate the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device?
You are responsible for having a sufficient understanding of and experience with the predicate device to be able to provide objective information about it that you have gathered via your or others' efforts. This could include, for instance, obtaining a unit and investigating it or working with users of the device in the field.

Also, back to the question of statement and summaries; is only one type obligated to provide information, or are both types regadless of apparent wording?
The two approaches have theoretically equal requirements, except that the Summary approach's requirement is met at time of submission.
 
J

Jodster24

#6
FYI-We were just contacted by a third party consultant requesting 510(k) minus sensitive information based on this clause given in our 510(k) statement. They gave advice to only submit as summary, as the safety and effectiveness information would have to be made available by FDA and not the applicant. I referenced this information on the FDA website as well.
Has anyone had to do this that can offer advice on how you have handled this situation?
 
M

MIREGMGR

#7
We always submit a Summary, not a Statement, per http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/D...remarketNotification510k/ucm142651.htm#link_7. It's more work up front, but it allows less eventual disclosure.

Our understanding of the extent of information that is required in response to a Statement-additional-information request is (quoting the above-linked Guidance) "a copy of the 510(k) [with patient identifiers, trade secret and confidential information deleted]" (bold in the original). I see no obvious justification for exclusion of your safety and effectiveness data, unless for technical reasons it is impossible to effectively redact patient identification or trade-secret/confidential-information content out of it.
 

Dramirez

Starting to get Involved
#8
As MIREGMGR pointed you could get enough information to demonstrate substantial equivalence "working with users of the device in the field", also from the labeling material of the predicate and barely general technical information in the Summary or Statement.
Searching scientific literature could be beneficial (has worked for me). I don't think any company will voluntarily disclose sensitive data. The only other way to get more information would be trough a FOIA request but this usually takes to much time.
Using all this sources you should be able to demonstrate that:

  • has the same intended use as the predicate; and
  • has the same technological characteristics as the predicate;
    or
  • has the same intended use as the predicate;
  • has different technological characteristics and the information submitted to FDA;
    • does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness; and
    • demonstrates that the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device”
 
Y

yana prus

#9
Hi there,

I have a question about how one acquires data to demonstrate the substantial equivalence of your device to the chosen predicate.
FOI Company enables to search & download unpublished FDA documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act (and their prices are very reasonable). http://www.foiservices.com/

Since 1976, over 76,000 510(k)s have been cleared for marketing. Although substantial portions of the 510(k) are available using the Freedom of Information Act, there is often an 18 to 24 month backlog in FDA's processing time for these requests. With over 35,000 510(k)s on file, FOI Services can often provide a 510(k) immediately.

You can search for the documents here:

http://www.foiservices.com/index.cfm
 
D

Dosumi

#10
Meeting 510k compliance using approved devices in lieu of testing.

I am working on a revised 510k for a class 1 medical device we are requested to supply addition information pertaining to ISO 10993-10 skin irritation and Sensitization these test are very expensive approximately $8,000 to $10,000 by the quotes I’ve received so far and we would need a total of 7 tests performed. We claimed SE to a predicate device that uses most of the same materials shouldn’t that address the concerns of ISO 10993-10 requirement and could I reference other 510k’s that used the other materials in question. None of the other 510k’s list compliance to ISO 10993-10 in the online database.
In our submission we listed and included reports for all of the standards that the predicate device used to meet compliance.
I have requested info on other aopproved 510k's through the FOIA but I think that is going to take to long.
Any help would be appreciated.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M Demonstrating battery safety in 510(K) submission for the FDA Other US Medical Device Regulations 9
M Difficulty in demonstrating Compliance to Many EMC Standards specified! Other Medical Device Related Standards 9
B Demonstrating Leadership Skills in a Job Interview Career and Occupation Discussions 7
S Best method for Demonstrating Employee Motivation (6.2.2.4) Compliance IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
I Cl 4.3.1 (c&d) Demonstrating fulfillment of requirements in HIRA register Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 1
T OHSAS 18001 - Demonstrating and Auditing Management Commitment. Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 9
S Demonstrating Capability in 'Goalpost' World Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 25
Ed Panek Notified Body Substantial Change MDD EU Medical Device Regulations 1
Ed Panek What are the limits on manufacturing changes and substantial changes? EU Medical Device Regulations 6
A What does this line from MDCG 2020-3 (MDR art. 120 substantial change) mean to you? EU Medical Device Regulations 4
Ed Panek Relevant questions on Substantial Change Form CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 3
D Proving Substantial Equivalence in Software Medical Devices Design and Development of Products and Processes 2
W Informational MDSAP Substantial change / Change of notice forms Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 2
K Substantial Equivalence Predicate Device Testing Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
M Medical Device News FDA News - 14-09-18 - Benefit-Risk Factors to Consider for Substantial Equivalence Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
C Substantial Change in MDSAP Audit Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 1
N Substantial or non-substantial modification in clinical studies EU Medical Device Regulations 1
B 21 CFR 803 Definition for 'Substantial Harm" Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
K ISO 10993 Requirements For 510k - Substantial Equivalence Other US Medical Device Regulations 11
J Change in Lot Release Specifications - Definition of "Substantial Change" EU Medical Device Regulations 14
S Finding a substantial Equivalent Medical Device Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
P FDA - Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
E Is Shelf Life extension a substantial change? EU Medical Device Regulations 6
T FDA 510k Submission - Section 012 SE (Substantial Equivalence) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
G A question on Substantial Equivalence (SE) ? Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
C Statistical Analysis to Demonstrate Substantial Equivalence to the FDA Other US Medical Device Regulations 5
J The 510(k) Program: Evaluating Substantial Equivalence in Premarket Notifications 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
A Substantial Equivalence for Laser Wavelength - Class 2 Aesthetic Product Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 2
K Procedure for Categorising Substantial Changes to Design CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 4
A Demonstration of Equivalence - Need for comparing biological characteristics for an SamD EU Medical Device Regulations 1
R Demonstrate how sufficient levels of access to data is achieved - Claims of equivalence EU Medical Device Regulations 3
TheMightyWife Clinical Evaluation MEDDEV 2.7.1 Rev 4 demonstration of equivalence EU Medical Device Regulations 6
H Claiming equivalence with the product that was sold earlier in the market but not now EU Medical Device Regulations 1
H Equivalence within Medical Device Family EU Medical Device Regulations 1
G HPLC Method Equivalence between USP and EP Various Other Specifications, Standards, and related Requirements 1
C Technical File Assessment from a NB - Clinical Equivalence CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 6
O Equivalence between AEC-Q200 and Product Life Time IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
A Determination of Production Equivalence for Design Validation 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
P Testing a US device in Europe to prove Equivalence in a ?head-to-head? Study EU Medical Device Regulations 6
I Determining Statistical Equivalence - Our Laboratory Results vs. our Suppliers Statistical Analysis Tools, Techniques and SPC 4
C Equivalence Studies - Validation Activities for several Identical Pieces of Equipment Manufacturing and Related Processes 1
C Equivalence Studies - Validation Activities for several Identical Pieces of Equipment Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 2
S New Equivalence Rules in Mexico for US and Canadian Medical Devices Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 9
C Clinical Data to Prove Equivalence Other US Medical Device Regulations 4
A Process Standard deviations and equivalence of Cp & Cpk Capability, Accuracy and Stability - Processes, Machines, etc. 3

Similar threads

Top Bottom