Electronic medical device reporting update
This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet
Companies may begin using new FDA device problem codes in their mandatory adverse event reports beginning July 1, the agency says. The new electronic Medical Device Reporting (eMDR) coding 1system revamps the previous system with specific improvements to patient and device problem codes, the inclusion of component codes to clarify the part of the device associated with the adverse event, and improvements to code descriptions and definitions, FDA says. Old MDR codes will still be accepted, but only until April 2, 2010 (2"The Gray Sheet" April 6, 2009)
You may also be interested in...
EV3 catheter recall: Firm recalls about 350 TrailBlazer support catheters Nov. 6 after receiving reports from physicians of cracking near the radiopaque marker band during the product's limited initial U.S. release. The malfunction could cause injuries such as insufficient oxygen supply to tissues, damage to blood vessels, heart attack or death, FDA said Jan. 5. The firm says the Class I recall was completed in December and all affected units have been returned to the company. A redesigned TrailBlazer support catheter was launched last month and is available worldwide, ev3 notes
MDR coding revamp: CDRH has a new 1Web site to help companies understand the new Medical Device Reporting (MDR) coding system that goes live July 1, marking the system's first redesign since its inception. FDA is addressing limitations of the current system, which has undefined or ambiguous codes, no formal process to request new codes and no hierarchical structure (2"The Gray Sheet" March 3, 2008, p. 9). Come July 1, the new codes can be used in Form 3500A mandatory adverse event reports, as well as any other device-related event reporting, such as clinical study and patient safety reporting. FDA anticipates it will stop accepting the old codes by April 2010
The Environmental Working Group and Scientific Analytical Institute say inadequate testing of talc-containing personal-care products is to blame for findings of asbestos in cosmetics, including three of 21 powder-based cosmetics SAI analyzed at EWG’s request. They continue to push for updated testing standards that include electron microscopy as a core component.