M
MIREGMGR
FDA published a new Draft Guidance today:
Transfer of a Premarket Notification (510(k)) Clearance – Questions and Answers
Much of this guidance simply repeats the several-year-existing direction that the party responsible for marketing of a device must List it using the FURLS online system, and must be the party responsible for the relevant 510(k) for the device if one is required.
The guidance however also includes this statement that to my understanding represents an extension of prior rules. I quote the first sentence only to provide context for the second sentence, which is important and I have bolded:
A requirement that contract processors must List has existed for several years. FDA however has not previously connected that second- or third-party behavior to the legal device status of the device owner.
This in my view is particularly interesting in regard to offshore contract sterilizers working for offshore contract manufacturers, who are third parties to the device owner and therefore one step removed from the device owner's direct control. Such control of course always has been required for sterilization validation, process-performance verification and certain logistics operations related to not mixing up non-sterile and sterile devices. Until now, though, the second- and third-party Listing requirement has been regarded by the industry, I think, as one that would get the second or third party in trouble...not the device owner.
Transfer of a Premarket Notification (510(k)) Clearance – Questions and Answers
Much of this guidance simply repeats the several-year-existing direction that the party responsible for marketing of a device must List it using the FURLS online system, and must be the party responsible for the relevant 510(k) for the device if one is required.
The guidance however also includes this statement that to my understanding represents an extension of prior rules. I quote the first sentence only to provide context for the second sentence, which is important and I have bolded:
Because contract manufacturers and sterilizers, foreign exporters, and foreign private label distributors are not responsible for the commercial distribution of devices, they would not be 510(k) holders, and should list the product under their customer’s 510(k) number once it has been listed by the 510(k) holder. Any entity that fails to list as required renders the device misbranded.
A requirement that contract processors must List has existed for several years. FDA however has not previously connected that second- or third-party behavior to the legal device status of the device owner.
This in my view is particularly interesting in regard to offshore contract sterilizers working for offshore contract manufacturers, who are third parties to the device owner and therefore one step removed from the device owner's direct control. Such control of course always has been required for sterilization validation, process-performance verification and certain logistics operations related to not mixing up non-sterile and sterile devices. Until now, though, the second- and third-party Listing requirement has been regarded by the industry, I think, as one that would get the second or third party in trouble...not the device owner.