Featured Video
This Week in Quality Digest Live
FDA Compliance Features
Jon Speer
And how it relates to four critical concerns
Grant Ramaley
The program attempts to ensure absolute confidence in medical-device certification, but at too great a cost
Mike Richman
Overcoming stress at work, the benefits of AS9100, and meaningless food labels
Brandon McFadden
Consumers will become ever-more mystified about what’s on a label
The QA Pharm
The most important lessons I’ve learned in pharmaceutical quality assurance during the last 40 years

More Features

FDA Compliance News
Strategic investment positions EtQ to accelerate innovation efforts and growth strategy
The FDA’s RMAT designation goes live
Awards help states implement multiyear produce-safety systems
The future of medical product development?
Manage risk while meeting regulatory requirements and compliance
FDA believes you can use openFDA to create products that promote public health
Company headquarters and 30 jobs in Dayton, operations in Europe, stay in place

More News

Michael Causey

FDA Compliance

FDA Works to Clarify Device Data Collection Priorities

Some post-approval studies can replace premarket studies

Published: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 - 16:01

(AssurX: Morgan Hill, CA) -- A new FDA guidance issued by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) offers some helpful detail for device firms uncertain if post-approval studies can replace premarket studies at the time of approval for premarket approval applications (PMAs).

The agency says there are some instances where it may consider it acceptable to collect certain data in a postmarket setting rather than premarket.

One area is mature technologies. For example, a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) has the same basic elements of an ICD, which have been used for decades. Clinical and preclinical evaluations in the premarket setting for the subcutaneous ICD were tailored to collect data on the new aspects and to evaluate functionality of the device, while more detailed safety data are collected in a postmarket study.

Other situations include an urgent public health need, especially in a situation where postmarket testing would do a better job confirming the benefits of a device.

The guidance spells out several other examples where it may be appropriate, including:
• Migration, an approach used when approval of Class III in vitro diagnostic devices previously approved, licensed, or cleared assay is shifted to another system for which the FDA hasn’t evaluated assay performance, is suitable in cases when sufficient knowledge can be gleaned for the documentation of design controls, risk analyses, and prior performance studies on an already marketed system
• Confirmation of mitigation effectiveness for a known risk in a post-approval study
• Modifying warnings, contraindications, or precautions in approved labeling
• Approval for an intended population beyond what was fully evaluated in the pivotal trial, with a confirmatory post-approval study
• Assessment of long-term performance in a post-approval study
• Assessment of rare adverse events in a post-approval study
• Confirmation of bench data with clinical data collected in a post-approval study
• Where the performance of a particular device type is well-studied, documented, and understood
• Where long-term outside the U.S. clinical performance data are available but deemed insufficient

First published April 20, 2015, on the AssurX blog.

Discuss

About The Author

Michael Causey’s picture

Michael Causey

James Michael Causey’s been a journalist since he started his own neighborhood newspaper in the 1970s. In addition to quizzing FDA officials for the past 10+ years, he’s also interviewed political satirist Art Buchwald, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt, SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro, and is the past president of the Washington Independent Writers. Causey is the editor and publisher of eDataIntegrityReport.com and is a contributing writer on the AssurXblog.