New 510k required for a material change?

W

WAF64

Starting to get Involved
Hello everybody,
we're changing a connector in a blood contacting medical device.
The new component is in PC while the old one (510k cleared) was PVC.
The component supplier gave us enough biocompatibility documentation to support our decision not to repeat biocompatibility testing.
So, because we have decided not to conduct additional testing should we file a new 510k for this change?

Thank you for your help!
:thanx:
 
M

Mark Meer

Trusted Information Resource
Hmmm, that's a tough one given that it's blood-contacting.

What is the nature of the biocompatibility documentation given to you by the supplier?

Does it meet the applicable ISO 10993 requirements?
http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm080742.htm

Also, you'll want to be certain that the evidence they've supplied to you reflect the materials as they will be in the final device. If there is additional processing (e.g. molding, coloring, polishing...) involved between the materials as presented by their evidence, and that in the final device, this could mean you'll have to do some testing on the finished material.
 
Ronen E

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Moderator
WAF64 said:
Hello everybody,
we're changing a connector in a blood contacting medical device.
The new component is in PC while the old one (510k cleared) was PVC.
The component supplier gave us enough biocompatibility documentation to support our decision not to repeat biocompatibility testing.
So, because we have decided not to conduct additional testing should we file a new 510k for this change?

Thank you for your help!
:thanx:
Click to expand...

Hi,

Most likely you need to submit a new (special) 510(k), and perhaps you also need to conduct biocompatibility testing on the new finished device.

Cheers,
Ronen.
 
W

WAF64

Starting to get Involved
Thanks Mark and Ronen for your answers.
Actually the documentation received (complete test reports) meets and exceeds the ISO10993 series requirements for our intended use.
The component will be used as is, without further processing except for terminal ETO sterilization.

We already use PC in other portions of our device but unfortunately the formulation is not exactly the same. I really don't think that the overall device biocompatibility can be impacted by the slightly different material formulation of a single connector, also considering its widespread use in analogous applications.

On the other hand I'm aware that FDA may not accept the rationale behind our decision not to retest.

I will discuss this further with my R&D but if additional testing/510k is necessary I guess the result will be "solution b" which is technically worse but there's no material change...
 
planB

planB

Super Moderator
WAF64,


ISO 10993-1 requires to test the _final_ product (representative), which typically includes all manufacturing steps including terminal sterilization:

1) Would you have a rationale why sterilization has no adverse impact on your final product?
2) What means "slightly" different formulation? What is your quantitative justification that the original complete test report still applies?

You may satisfy FDA expectations by the following approach:

Since you mention a _complete_ test report at hand, you should be also in possession of material characterization and cytotoxicity data for the unsterilized product. You also mention a biocompatibility file for PC of "slightly" different formulation

1) Repeat your material characterization study (ie.e. lechables and/or extractables gained by using solvents of different polarity) according to ISO 10993-18 on your final product, i.e. the terminally sterilized connector with slightly changed material formulation

2) Repeat Repeat your cytotoxicity test according to ISO 10993-5 on your final product, i.e. the terminally sterilized connector with slightly changed material formulation

3) Compare these two results to the two existing material characterization and cytotoxicity test results provided by your supplier and the PC you already use: if your leachables /extractables profiles and cytotoxicity results are equivalent you will have the rationale at hand to conclude that your new connector is biocompatible without having to experimentally re-study all the other biological risks.

HTH,

Gerhard
 
planB

planB

Super Moderator
Ronen E said:
What about EtO residuals?
Click to expand...

Ronen,


thanks for raising this point.


EtO residuals are usually considered - and reviewed during submissions - as part of the sterilization validation according to ISO 11135, though from a standards point of view ISO 10993-7 is part of the 10993 series. So usually EtO residuals are not part of a biocompatibility evaluation file.


Having said this, EtO residuals are evaluated as part of the sterilization validation of the device: either you demonstrate this by rationales (PVC, your former material, is in many cases a worst case for residuals, which might be also true for this device under discussion) or do dedicated new experimental residuals studies according to ISO10993-7 in case you do not have an already qualified worst-case representative for residuals at hand.


HTH,


Gerhard
 
W

WAF64

Starting to get Involved
Thanks for your post Gerard, this makes sense to me.
We will evaluate the existing documentation to assess feasibility of this approach.

With this rationale at hand, do you believe a special 510k would still be required?
 
planB

planB

Super Moderator
WAF64 said:
With this rationale at hand, do you believe a special 510k would still be required?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I am not a regulatory specialist, but you might be able to use this guidance to your advantage:


http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm080235.htm#page16


and specifically this section:


C2.2.1 ...A 510(k) may not be needed if the manufacturer has satisfactory results from the testing indicated by ISO 10993-1 in its files for the material in question or if such results are available to the manufacturer, e.g., are available in the open published literature or have been provided to the 510(k) holder by the material supplier.
Click to expand...
To my experience, FDA is open to informal discussion. So you could inquire with FDA presenting your case and your rationales why you consider your changes as being insignificant not warranting a submission. You could outline your rationales to FDA, why the existing data allows you to establish biocompatbility for the changed device and that you perform limited testing only to support your conclusion that you have already drawn from your existing data. In case FDA still wants to see a submission, the agaency will tell you.


HTH,

Gerhard
 
Ronen E

Ronen E

Problem Solver
Moderator
planB said:
Unfortunately, I am not a regulatory specialist, but you might be able to use this guidance to your advantage:


http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm080235.htm#page16


and specifically this section:


To my experience, FDA is open to informal discussion. So you could inquire with FDA presenting your case and your rationales why you consider your changes as being insignificant not warranting a submission. You could outline your rationales to FDA, why the existing data allows you to establish biocompatbility for the changed device and that you perform limited testing only to support your conclusion that you have already drawn from your existing data. In case FDA still wants to see a submission, the agaency will tell you.


HTH,

Gerhard
Click to expand...

My guess is that FDA will ask for a new submission in which the additional biocompatibility data and any additional analysis / rationalisation are included. I don't think that FDA has another mechanism for reviewing such a compilation.

Cheers,
Ronen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Is 14971 Annex C checklist now in ISO/TR 24971 required to complete prior to 510k filing? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 3
S Examples of software changes that required a 510k US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
S IEC 62133 - CB Scheme Required by FDA 510k Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
P Is a different 510k is required for each (stand alone) software configurations? Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
N Is a new 510K required for change of manufacturing location for an existing device? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
M Is 510k Required for Adding a section on use of Disinfectants to Product Manual? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
G Is a 510K required for a Home Use Class I Exempt Medical Device? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
C CMO for class 2, 510k exempt device Manufacturing and Related Processes 4
A Where 60601-1 represented in the 510k submission? US Medical Device Regulations 6
S Is it possible to obtain FDA clearance (510k) without meeting QSR? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
A Shipped Products Liability After 510k Ownership Transfer US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
R US FDA 510k Australia TGA US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
S Adding new product code/Catalogue number to existing 510K US Medical Device Regulations 0
N Importing into US without 510K/FDA Clearance US Medical Device Regulations 1
V FDA 510K - Pre Submission Query US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 6
C FDA 510k documentation requirements US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 1
E 510k reference devices US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
S Submit under a new product code in a 510k? US Medical Device Regulations 5
G Declare interoperability in a 510K Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 1
S Looking to find a pharmaceutical manufacturer that would be interested in buying or licensing a USDA 510k clearance General Information Resources 4
E Do I need test reports for all standards mentioned in my 510k application? Other Medical Device Related Standards 8
T Including a class 1 camera in the 510k application of class 2 therapeutic technology? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 18
N Traditional 510K Submission-Financial Certification or Disclosure Statement 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 6
P Letter to file or special 510k or traditional 510k 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
Y 510k requirement for bringing in gloves Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
G Special 510K possible? Only the packaging has changed Other US Medical Device Regulations 0
K 510k FDA review, will they accept Biocompatibility result generated using feasibility product lots? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 8
H 510k with Contract Manufacturer Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
K FDA 510k electrosurgery 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
J Leveraging FDA 510k Clearance for International Registrations Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
K 510K new manufacturer but same components Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
S Two or more predicates suitable? 510K submission US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
S 510k: What to include if your own device is the predicate US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 5
L 510K - Trade Name Change 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
Ed Panek Adverse Event Clinical Trial using a 510K approved Device Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
R Countries that accept 510k approvals - Class II nonsterile medical device Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 2
M Timing of 510k submission Other US Medical Device Regulations 9
D 510K and Changes to Verification and Validation US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2
Ronen E Can anyone please explain this? (510k submission requirement) Other US Medical Device Regulations 14
H New 510K VS Documents about design change. Other US Medical Device Regulations 2
P Medical Device not on commercial distribution but installed in the establishment. 510k? Other US Medical Device Regulations 10
V Presubmission FDA for 510k US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
A How to deal with changed shared components in 510k 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2
N Can we take a part from 510k cleared medical device and use it in class I device? Other US Medical Device Regulations 6
D Contents of a 510k Q submission Other US Medical Device Regulations 1
L Class IIa Medical Device, CE Mark & 510k - Labeling Content CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 4
Ed Panek Other company wants to use our FDA 510K bundled with their product 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
L 510k exemption process - Do you still need to submit technical dossier? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 5
S The key differences in 510k types - Traditional vs. Abbreviated vs. Special US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 0
P V&V for Special 510k 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 2

Similar threads

Top Bottom