M
Re: Use of Symbols on Medical Device Labels - FDA Requirements
Inconsistency sometimes occurs in FDA reviews.
I don't know of any documented basis for FDA to request removal of symbol content from labeling if that symbol content is closely coupled to English text content that communicates the same message.
FDA has according semi-recognized status to past GHTF guidances, and GHTF/SG1/N70:2011 allows (and recommends) the use of symbols by themselves, without a need for explanatory English subtext, as long as the symbol's meaning is clear to the intended user. This of course conflicts with existing FDA guidances, but certainly would seem to oppose a reviewer going beyond the text of those existing FDA guidances in the opposite direction.
I don't interpret any of the primary FDA guidances on labeling to prohibit presence of content in addition to the required content, as long as that extra content does not mislead the intended user. In past instances of which I'm aware, symbols with fully explanatory English subtext of sufficiently prominent and readable typesize to explain the symbol meaning have not been considered misleading to the intended user.
If your reviewer is stubborn on this, you could consider appealing that point to the next review level. FDA in the past has been willing to cooperate when a device is to be label for global sales, involving conformance to multiple regulatory authority requirements, when the Manufacturer can show a reasonable effort to support safety and effectiveness via their labeling approach.
Inconsistency sometimes occurs in FDA reviews.
I don't know of any documented basis for FDA to request removal of symbol content from labeling if that symbol content is closely coupled to English text content that communicates the same message.
FDA has according semi-recognized status to past GHTF guidances, and GHTF/SG1/N70:2011 allows (and recommends) the use of symbols by themselves, without a need for explanatory English subtext, as long as the symbol's meaning is clear to the intended user. This of course conflicts with existing FDA guidances, but certainly would seem to oppose a reviewer going beyond the text of those existing FDA guidances in the opposite direction.
I don't interpret any of the primary FDA guidances on labeling to prohibit presence of content in addition to the required content, as long as that extra content does not mislead the intended user. In past instances of which I'm aware, symbols with fully explanatory English subtext of sufficiently prominent and readable typesize to explain the symbol meaning have not been considered misleading to the intended user.
If your reviewer is stubborn on this, you could consider appealing that point to the next review level. FDA in the past has been willing to cooperate when a device is to be label for global sales, involving conformance to multiple regulatory authority requirements, when the Manufacturer can show a reasonable effort to support safety and effectiveness via their labeling approach.