Medtech Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Split Predicate? Nope, That’s A ‘Reference Device,’ FDA Says

This article was originally published in The Gray Sheet

Executive Summary

An upcoming FDA guidance will explain how firms can use additional “reference devices” in 510(k) submissions to help reviewers better understand new technologies, the agency says.

You may also be interested in...



A No-Predicate 510(k) Future? Pending US FDA Policy Might Forge A Path

510(k) clearances are the US market on-ramp for most devices, and proving the device is similar enough to an already-marketed product is the entry toll. But a policy in development at FDA's device center offers an optional approach that avoids predicate comparisons. Center director Jeffrey Shuren says in an interview that he expects the new approach will become the "pathway of choice" for many companies, potentially upending what has been a defining characteristic of the device regulatory landscape for decades.

Paradigm Persists: FDA Finalizes 510(k) Guidance Without Special 510(k) Changes

FDA has finalized an important guidance on 510(k) substantial equivalence, but decided to hold off on including sections that would overwrite the popular 1998 “The New 510(k) Paradigm” guidance that describe the abridged special and abbreviated 510(k) routes. Industry strongly objected to FDA’s proposed changes to the special 510(k) program in the 2011 draft 510(k) guidance.

Changing The Paradigm: 510(k) Draft Guidance May Raise New Questions

New concepts such as “primary predicates” and “reference devices” may be more confusing than clarifying, former FDA staffers say.

Related Content

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

MT030598

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel