ISO 10993 (Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices) for Suppliers

W

WisdomseekerSC

#1
We are a contract component manufacturer of specialty extruded polymeric materials (primarily tubing) for multiple industries world-wide. For our medical industry customers, we currently provide "medical grade" components that have passed USP Class VI testing. We don't always know what the end application is, but, we do extrude bioabsorbable materials for use in cardiovascular implants in direct contact with blood for > 30 days.

We are now transitioning to PFOA-free resins for some of our extrusion processes. As part of our Biological Evaluation Plan we will be retesting our materials :yes:.

We plan to survey our customer base to determine what testing they desire (USP Class VI or ISO 10993). We are also contemplating filing Master Access File (MAF) with FDA in the USA to provide our medical customers with additional support in filing 510(k) and PMA :agree1:.

Question: As RA and QA professionals representing or consulting with Medical Device Manufacturers, what specific biocompatibility testing would you like to see from your Component Suppliers?
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#2
We are a contract component manufacturer of specialty extruded polymeric materials (primarily tubing) for multiple industries world-wide. For our medical industry customers, we currently provide "medical grade" components that have passed USP Class VI testing. We don't always know what the end application is, but, we do extrude bioabsorbable materials for use in cardiovascular implants in direct contact with blood for > 30 days.

We are now transitioning to PFOA-free resins for some of our extrusion processes. As part of our Biological Evaluation Plan we will be retesting our materials :yes:.

We plan to survey our customer base to determine what testing they desire (USP Class VI or ISO 10993). We are also contemplating filing Master Access File (MAF) with FDA in the USA to provide our medical customers with additional support in filing 510(k) and PMA :agree1:.

Question: As RA and QA professionals representing or consulting with Medical Device Manufacturers, what specific biocompatibility testing would you like to see from your Component Suppliers?
Hi,

I would dare and say USP class VI is pretty much useless these days for a customer, from a regulatory submissions point of view. ISO 10993 is much better in that sense, though I wouldn't go too far in this direction either, because final product manufacturers are required to demonstrate biocompatibility IN THE FINAL STATE, and as such any material / component that is exposed to further processing after you supply it (e.g. sterilization) may have to be retested anyway (typically, integrated in the final product). In my view, the main benefit in ISO 10993 certified components is the relatively-high confidence level they provide that any such further testing will show compliance. As a start I would probably go for the 3 basic ISO 10993 tests.

A master file submitted to the FDA is always a treat for anyone working on a 510(k)! :agree1:

Cheers,
Ronen.
 
Last edited:
M

MIREGMGR

#4
I agree with Ronen E.

As to which ISO 10993 tests, the current US FDA guidance is G95-1, unless FDA determines in a pre-submission conference with your customer that even more testing will be required.

I'm very surprised that your customers haven't already stated that to you, and that they think USP Class VI is still relevant to devices. That ended as of the adoption of G87-1, the predecessor to G95-1, in April 1987.

My understanding is that "for consideration" in the G95-1 tables should be read as "mandatory", because the latter is their operational intent but they don't want to fight the legal battles if they publish that specific word.

For a >30 day blood communicating implantable, it'll be eight tests, not three. It's not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that there might be other evaluations required for bioabsorbables.
 
W

WisdomseekerSC

#5
Our purpose in ISO 10993 testing will be to provide confidence to our medical customers that our component parts are biocompatible. We only wish to SCREEN since the OEM will conduct the full gamut of testing based on the final finished device intended body contact and duration of exposure (since we are not privy most of the time). I think additional testing for the bioabsorable/resorbable materials may be in order. I just don't know which tests are the most appropriate for a general SCREEN to provide the comfort level needed for the value-added supplier tested materials we make. It may all revolve around the risk assessment and chemical characterization of the materials.
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#6
Our purpose in ISO 10993 testing will be to provide confidence to our medical customers that our component parts are biocompatible. We only wish to SCREEN since the OEM will conduct the full gamut of testing based on the final finished device intended body contact and duration of exposure (since we are not privy most of the time). I think additional testing for the bioabsorable/resorbable materials may be in order. I just don't know which tests are the most appropriate for a general SCREEN to provide the comfort level needed for the value-added supplier tested materials we make. It may all revolve around the risk assessment and chemical characterization of the materials.
Hi,

The 3 tests I referred to were Cytotoxicity, Sensitization & Irritation. By no means I said these are sufficient for any regulatory purpose (though in the greater sense - not for long-term implants - sometimes they are). I see this trio as a MINIMUM for the purpose of convincing customers that a certain product is in fact medical grade and has THE POTENTIAL of eventually qualifying by the book. Without them, I estimate most customers (if given a choice) would look for another, more supportive, source; that's because biocompatibility tests can take long and cost a lot, and most companies don't like to gamble (R&D is a gamble to an extent anyway :lol:). Of course, if you have the resources and want to go further, more tests will bolster your position.

As I said before, in many cases your results (on your finished product, which would be a "raw material" for your customer) will not be usable as-is, because they don't necessarily represent the final device composition & state. I think it is not so much about providing your customers with hard results; it is more about providing perceived confidence.

Cheers,
Ronen.

PS I just noticed I accidentally missed a word in my previous post - I initially wrote "the 3 ISO 10993 tests", while I meant "the 3 basic ISO 10993 tests". Apologies.
 
Last edited:
M

MIREGMGR

#7
I just don't know which tests are the most appropriate for a general SCREEN to provide the comfort level needed for the value-added supplier tested materials we make.
If I were a user of such materials and was considering your materials for the first time, without pre-existing test data of my own, I wouldn't want to make a development investment until I had pretty good confidence that those materials eventually would be able to pass the full set of tests. So, the screening data I'd want to see would be the hardest to pass of the full set of tests.

My understanding is that while the basic tests are considered to be easy as long as a material isn't acutely toxic, those tests that are only required for long term blood-communicating implantables are much harder to pass. Thus they'd make the best screen from the customer's viewpoint.
 
W

WisdomseekerSC

#8
Wow...I hadn't thought of it that way. If material is reactive in the short term it would show up in a longer term study early on, if not then the study continues to evaluate the longer term effects. Although more costly, the longer term studies may provide more value for the dollar. It is typically a one time test unless material composition changes or significant change in the process is implemented that suggests a retest.

This discussion has been very helpful. Any recommendations for a good Biological Safety Testing Laboratory?
 

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Staff member
Moderator
#9
Wow...I hadn't thought of it that way. If material is reactive in the short term it would show up in a longer term study early on, if not then the study continues to evaluate the longer term effects. Although more costly, the longer term studies may provide more value for the dollar. It is typically a one time test unless material composition changes or significant change in the process is implemented that suggests a retest.

This discussion has been very helpful. Any recommendations for a good Biological Safety Testing Laboratory?
Check out NAMSA.

Good luck.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J Biological Evaluation requirements per ISO 10993 - Medical Device Testing ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
J ISO 10993 (Biological Compatibility) Approved Materials US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 23
L Process changes and biocompatibility (ISO 10993-1) Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
S ECG Cable Banana to Snap or Tab electrode Adapters -- ISO 10993 Requirement Other Medical Device Related Standards 0
Kuldeep Singh Diagnostic X-ray devices - Applicability of Biocompatibility Testing per ISO 10993-1 Manufacturing and Related Processes 7
A ISO 10993-7:2008/ Amd.1:2019 - Classification of special populations Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
P European versions of standards - ISO 10993-1 and ISO 11607-1 EU Medical Device Regulations 6
S ISO 10993 Biocompatibility Evaluation - Electronic thermometer Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
P ISO 10993-1:2018 - When will the European equivalent become a Harmonized Standard? Other Medical Device Related Standards 13
I ISO 10993 Biocompatibility Requirements - manufacturing process chemicals Other Medical Device Related Standards 8
N Technical File Reviewer has requested more testing to ISO 10993 Other Medical Device Related Standards 10
T ISO 10993-7 - Ethylene oxide sterilization residues Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
planB ISO 10993-1:2018 has just been published Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
M Does ISO 10993 Apply to Packaging? (e.g. Travel Case) Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
K ISO 10993 Requirements For 510k - Substantial Equivalence Other US Medical Device Regulations 11
T Using Risk Management in ISO 10993 - Medical Device Accessory 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P ISO 10993 - Sterile (Irradiation) Polypropylene Syringe Question Other Medical Device Related Standards 6
D Actual Definition of Non-Contact for ISO 10993 Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
R Biocompatibility - ISO 10993 and SVHC Requirements Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
S ISO 10993-1: External Communicating Device biocompatibility test requirements Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 4
S Selecting materials for implants to comply with ISO 10993 biocompatibility Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
T Plastic of an infusion pump enclosure and ISO 10993 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
E Upcoming changes for ISO 10993 and IEC 60601 in South Korea Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
M FDA issues draft guidance to replace G95-1 (Application of ISO 10993) 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
B Verify GB/T 16886 is the same as ISO 10993 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
B New ISO 10993-12 - Consistency of Extraction Conditions through different Assays Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
S Suppliers of ISO 10993 compliant Material for Skin Contact Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 3
M ISO 10993 - Repeat tests necessary if colour changes slightly? Other Medical Device Related Standards 11
M Pre-Selecting Materials for ISO 10993-1 Biocompatibility Compliance Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 5
F ISO 10993-10 - Removed from List of Harmonized Standards Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
S ISO 10993 Cytotox Testing - Direct Contact rather than Extractables Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
E Meeting ISO 10993-1 2009 Material Risk Assessment Requirements Other Medical Device Related Standards 13
M ISO 10993 Labs which can test Cytotoxicity, Sensitizaton and Irritation Other Medical Device Related Standards 10
M ISO 10993 for Fabric based Electrode - Finding already FDA Approved Materials Other Medical Device Related Standards 11
A Claiming Biocompatibility without ISO 10993-1 Other Medical Device Related Standards 19
T ISO 10993-10: 2002 vs 2010 version - What are the Major Changes? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 2
I EO (Ethylene Oxide) Residuals - EN ISO 10993-7:2008 EU Medical Device Regulations 5
D Does anyone know of a biocompatible ABS tested & certified to ISO 10993-1 Other Medical Device Related Standards 5
W ISO 10993 - Replacing Sensitization Test with Systemic Toxicity Test? Other Medical Device Related Standards 4
I ISO 10993-10:2010 Guidance Document for Irritation and Sensitization Test - Changes ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
M EO (Ethylene Oxide) and ECH (Ethylene Chlorohydrin) Residual as per ISO 10993-7:2008 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 15
I ISO 10993-1:2009 Sensitization (Initial Evaluation Test) vs. USP Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
B What ISO 10993 considers Non-Invasive vs. Invasive MDD 93/42/EEC EU Medical Device Regulations 3
C Differences between the biocompatibility standards ISO 7405 and ISO 10993 Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
R What the difference in ISO 10993-11:2006 and 2009? Other Medical Device Related Standards 17
R Extent of Recognition of ISO 10993-1 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
M Biocompatibility of Medical Devices (ISO 10993 vs Japan requirement) Japan Medical Device Regulations 1
J ISO 10993: Biocompatibility and Use of Textile Materials for Skin Contact Devices Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
D Cytotoxicity testing to ISO 10993-5 results - Is 1/ mild a pass or fail? Other Medical Device Related Standards 7
B Implementation Schedule in EU for ISO 10993-7:2008 - Transition period? EU Medical Device Regulations 9

Similar threads

Top Bottom