A question on prototype devices:

 QUES:  

My company is a small startup  We want to get proceed into certifications and regulatory approval using a “production equivalent prototype”. This prototype is identical in design to our planned production model (equivalent design controls), however the materials and manufacturing methods of a few of the external enclosure parts will be different. We need to do this because we don’t have the funding to create production molds for these parts and we would rather use cheaper methods/materials to get through regulatory before we invest huge sums of money into production.

 

My question for you is: If we take this approach and use the pre-production materials for completing regulatory approval do you think we will need submit another 510k when we want to move into higher volume production in the future? We plan on providing test data showing the enclosure still passes 60601-1 (we will get another report done through our test lab), provide data showing performance of clinical function is within tolerance to the production prototype and justify that the production method/materials are better controlled and higher preforming than the production equivalent prototype?

 

 ANS:  By certification, I assume the product is to be sold outside the US and you have to hire a Notified-Body to certify your QMS, some inspections in manufacturing and your Technical File.  The  US FDA has a registration process.  All have fees associated with them.

 

The FDA specifically requires that the product tested for regulatory submission be equivalent to what will be sold, e.g., Design Control 21 CFR 820.30, under (g) Design validation - "shall include testing of production units under actual or simulated use conditions." 

 

Changes in material (and resulting electrical characteristics, biocompatibility issues, etc.), IF they impact safety and effectiveness, require a new 510(k); if validation data shows no new impacts on S and E (see the two Guidance Documents on changes to devices having a 510(k) requiring submitting a new 510(k)) then the test data would be sufficient (retained in your device's DHF, subject to FDA inspection) and no new 510(k) would be required.

 

Your proposed method carries a high degree of risk on the surface, and its success would be dependent upon solid test / verification and validation data showing at least equivalence if not some superiority. However, since this is an enclosure there would be less safety issues, I'd assume. However, companies do occasionally use short life tooling initially for molded parts, changing to more expensive and durable tooling as market acceptance increases, and usually validation is sufficient to address the S&E issues. 

 

QUES:  I think we can justify that the initial device tested for regulatory submission can be considered a “production unit” but it would only be feasible for small scale initial production runs. If our product were to build up demand, we would need to switch to an injected part. We hoped we could do this with an engineering design change with additional, testing, data and documentation as I described below. We would want to avoid having to submit another 510k if we did need to make this modification, but I really can’t see how we would reduce S&E with this change.  The high production unit parts would be stronger, have a more controlled production method and have more examples of successful biocompatibility assessments, therefore I think there is little risk that the test data shows a reduction.

 

My main concern is that FDA would see the production method change and have an issue with that aspect of this design change. Let me know what you think.

 

ANS: If the only change is from limited tooling to high-volume tooling, it's not an issue.  If the change is from thermo forming or similiar to high volume injection molding that should not be an issue that can't be addressed by robust V&V.  If that change is coupled with a material change then this is the area of major concern, but can usually be addressed with all necessary test data showing same or better resolution of S&E with the injection molded part.  Those two Guidance Documents on changes and the 510(k) do allow for good QSR / V&V data to address the S&E, possibly eliminating the need for a new 510(k) (S&E is what an FDA review of a 510(k) focuses on).  

-- jel@jelincoln.com

Also look into FDA's new proposed PCCP (Predetermined Change Control Plans):

https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/predetermined-change-control-plans-medical-devices?trk=public_post_comment-text

It proposes that anticipated future changes can also be included in your original  510(k) submission for review to include how you plan to address them to assure S&E, usually by V&V.  If cleared in the initial 510(k) you can then later incorporate them without having to submit a new 510(k).  However, what I said in the main discussion above, would probably still be a reasonable alternative approach. - JEL, 06/14/25.

A question received in my webinar on the EU's Clinical Trials Regulation presentation

 QUES:  Is there a specific section or chapter or any detailed considerations described for cell and gene therapies and how to deal with them in contrast to conventional drugs under the new Regulation ?

 

ANS:  Short answer:  No.  Long answer:  The CTR is a high level document, focused on subject safety and accuracy of the data generated.  Also the simplification of the submission process.  It discusses a risk-based (patient risk) approach to the submission documentation:  By defining low intervention trials, EU-CTR enables a risk-based approach that EU-CTD could not sustain. Consequently, sponsors of low intervention studies may enjoy simpler submission dossiers (e.g., Summary of Product Characteristics [SmPC] used rather than IMP Dossier [IMPD]). They also may experience less stringent rules for monitoring, the content of the Trial Master File (TMF) and investigational product (IP) release. 

 

The sponsor's claim of low-intervention or not is evaluated upon submission to the EU portal by qualified individuals in the assessing Member State - see CTR Articles 5.2, 6 and 25.

 

The cell and gene therapies trials would likely fall into a higher risk intervention trial, requiring more detailed submission dossiers, and tighter assessment and monitoring, etc., rules and release to the market evaluations.

-- jel@jelincoln.com

A MAJOR CHANGE IS COMING!

 The FDA has been working to align its QSR (21 CFR 820, the device CGMPs) with the worldwide quality systems device standard ISO 13485. FDA published the proposed amendment to 21 CFR Part 820: "Medical Devices; Quality System Regulation Amendments", on February 23, 2022; harmonizing the current Quality System regulation for medical devices by converging its requirements with international quality management system requirements. 

Part of the reason for harmonizing its regulations with ISO 13485 is to reduce the regulatory burden for device makers who sell product in both the US and in EU / Asia, by eliminating redundancies involved in complying with both the ISO and QSR (Quality System Regulation) standards. After years of reviews, the Agency has determined that the requirements in ISO 13485 are, when considered as a whole, "substantially similar to the requirements of the current Part 820, providing a similar level of assurance in a firm’s quality management system and ability to consistently manufacture devices that are safe and effective and otherwise in compliance with the FD&C Act.” They base this decision on their past participation in the Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP), as well as a previous audit report pilot program in which the Agency accepted manufacturers' N-B audit reports based on ISO 13485 (-:2003) in lieu of an FDA QSR compliance inspections. FDA agrees that ISO 13485 represents a more modern QMS approach and “has greater integration of risk management activities and stronger ties to ISO 14971, the risk management standard for medical devices". 

What will the new Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) require?  A key element is the incorporation of ISO 13485 into the new 820 by reference.  Major emphasis will be upon risk management in accordance with ISO 14971 (-:2019), which currently has only a brief reference  in 820.30.  The FDA views risk management as an “essential systematic practice” to ensure that devices are safe and effective. If the proposed QMSR rule is finalized, it will enhance some parts of ISO 13485 under the revised 820 portion of the rule.  

Device  manufacturers will need to enhance risk management procedures for specific devices and in all other areas of their businesses to align with the QMSR.  Design Control (ISO 13485 7.3 Design and Development) will have limited application to Class I devices, but fully involve Class II and III (US classifications) as is currently done in the US but not the EU.   Traceability of implantable devices will be emphasized more than in  ISO 13485. The QMSR will re-emphasize senior management's importance establishing and maintaining a policy of quality, and a company culture of quality. The concept and definition of the make-up and role of "the customer", a term familiar to ISO but not the old QSR.

There are other changes as well. Combination products' CGMPs, 21 CFR 4, will be modified to include reference to ISO 13485.  QSIT will be changed.  The FDA's new inspection program would not be a substitute for an ISO 13485 certification procedure if one is required, nor would those who hold an ISO 13485 certificate be exempt from FDA inspection. Once the final rule is approved, the FDA proposes to give manufacturers one year from the publication of the final rule to adapt to the new regulatory requirements.

Our clients are already ahead of the curve on this change.  SOPs and QMs that we have written for the past 15+ years have included references to ISO 13485, as well as the current version of 820.  As a result, they will require less revision than otherwise.

-- jel@jelincoln.com

Question on Yield and OEE in Phama Production Lots

• QUES:  I read in some FDA document about yield. I have seen some warning letters exactly on this topic as well. However, there are many instances where OEE is prepared instead of yield. And classified as Non GMP. Are these 2 different things ? And should OEE be classified as Non-GMP ?

• View John E.’s profile
  

  
  

  ANS:  OEE = Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE).  OEE is a measure of how effectively a manufacturing operation is being utilized.  I can't give you an FDA "approved" answer as I have no information / experience from them on that subject.  My personal opinion currently is that I would not recommend substituting one for the other.  Yield is a specific lab calculation(s) required under the CGMPs for various processes in / during and at the end of a lot and logged as part of the batch record. OEE is more a manufacturing process utilization measurement, usually more generalized, which could be part of the CGMPs P&PC "tools" but is not specifically mandated in the CGMPs.  And you have to meet the CGMPs. If you could show a 100% correlation between the two at the level of the requirements of yield and its intervals required in the process for each lot, and the OEE data is handled under the rigors / documentation of the CGMPs, you may have a rationale for such use, but that's highly ify and I can't comment on that vis-a-vis your operation.  

• -- jel@jelincoln.com

 Questions on FDA Registration and 510(k) by an Asian client on a facility move:

QUES 1) The unit which we are delisting, will this be subjected to any USFDA
audit for the production done so far ?

 

ANS:  All production is subject to review / audit by the Agency, usually if there are problems. Once the facility is shut down, such review is only done on the existing records, lot / batch records, logs, validation test reports, etc.  I recommend you do a shut down verification per one of my previous e-mails I just sent you, to verify that everything was operating in specification for the last lot / last item in the last lot produced.

   
QUES 2) The US FDA 510K was first given to the XXXX unit and now is also
available to the YYYY unit. The 510K is very important for us and I am assuming that even if we remove the old unit it will not affect the 510K given to our company.

 

ANS:  The 510(k) remains with the company, unless it's sold with the device. The company's address can change, but that doesn't change the 510(k)'s  ownership.  The FDA however currently has no way to update old 510(k)s on file with them, 'tho they recognize that's a problem.

 

However whenever you change production locations, equipment, processes tied to a 510(k), you are responsible to revalidate the things that changed or moved to prove that the product is still being made the same (and as documented in the 510(k) - see the two guidance documents on changes to devices and the 510(k)'s) and no quality issues have arisen as a result of the move / changes.

-- jel@jelincoln.com 

 Some European Companies Selling in the US Aren't Playing By the Rules

As a consultant working with clients all over the world, I sometimes get push-back to a recommended action using reasoning similar to the following comment from a client:

Most of the pharma facilities in this area are not following the cGMP rules, even though they sell to USA market.  This happens when if they bring in new equipment. The facilities here are almost 20-30 years old and they all seem to have the understanding that if they print the batch record on a paper then they are free from Part 11 requirements. They don't do cleaning after each run.  They claim they only use a paper system, and aren't under 21  CFR Part 11. Some companies are doing API manufacturing in a non-sterile environment, not good aseptic processing . Some are installing new equipment, but with no proper (or only haphazard)  verification / validation, and many other non-conformances. It doesn't appear that the FDA has been here for inspections. So, if my competitors are not obligated to follow the cGMPs, why should I?

I usually answer similarly to the following:

If the companies sell in the US they are required to follow the US FDA CGMPs for their
industry, e.g., 21 CFR 820 for devices, and 21 CFR 210, -211plus for drugs.  They don't need 

to follow 21 CFR11 if they used paper records and manual signatures, BUT all their people 

have to do that.  If some are using the e-records / e-signatures to do CGMP activities / 

records, then it doesn't matter what they say their policy is, they're viewed as under Part 11 

by the US FDA.  

The FDA has 11 resident posts located world-wide, outside the US, 3 in mainland China.  They

are still backlogged due to COVID 19 in inspections, and they base the frequency of

those inspections on the company's products' risk to patient.  But I have worked with some 

EU companies that have had US FDA inspections and gotten Warning Letters, ditto Asia, so 

the FDA is currently inspecting some companies in the EU and Asia.  Those companies had 

previously had great 

notified body audits, incidentally.  The CGMP disconnects I see are usually with the biggest 

problems in CAPA, Trending, andthe definition of risk (the FDA focuses on patient safety (per 1SO 14971), many EU and Asian 

companies also include      

financial, regulatory, schedules under risk as well).  I see a lot of problems with V&V all over the 

world, including in the US.Some validations not holding variables constant, e.g., with written P/Ns and specs, change control,

key variables not validated, no predetermined acceptance criteria set before running the V&V, et al.

Sad to say, I see the same things that you've mentioned.  As a consultant, I usually get called after 

an FDA Inspection, when the company gets a lot of 483 observations and/or a Warning Letter for

for things they should have been doing all along but weren't.

Some current Covid 19 vaccine start-up production issues, drug 

shortages, and baby formula shortage problems here in the US were due to failures in cross-

contamination controls, basic CGMPs. In some cases, they've been misinformed by another consultant.

I try to educate such companies and their personnel, but some feel I'm only requiring some document

to "pad my fee", so, sad to say they'll find out the hard way when they finally are inspected and get a 

Warning Letter, or are shut down after some of their customers in the field get sick or die.

-- jel@jelincoln.com

02/16/25  Added "comment" to first sentence above. Added "(ISO 14971)" to para. 5 above. - JEL

 Equipment Software / Firmware V&V, Part 11 Issues

QUES:  I read some of your articles on IVT network. Content of the articles are very clear and informative. I still have some questions though. Can I ask if you don't mind ? For medical device manufacturing industry, we follow 21 cfr 820, 21 cfr 11. Under 21 cfr 820 there is Device Master Record, Device History Record & Device History File.

 Let's say there are 3 machines used for manufacturing a FDA regulated medical device. 1. Inspection Machine, 2. Assembly Machine, 3. Blister Machine. Q:Will these machines at any stage create electronic Record that we must preserve under FDA regulations? E.g., Recipes/ configurations, Visual Inspection (Quality Related) pictures of Labels, Alarms

ANS:  The CGMPs for devices, 21 CFR 820 require a DMR or recipe for how the device is built (BOM template, references to applicable assembly and test SOPs, drawings, required labeling, traveler template, etc.). The DHR or lot record provides proof that the DMR was followed for that lot, e.g., the BOM is filled out with lot numbers and quantities of each part used, the traveler documents line clearances, machine settings, QC test results, etc.. These records may be kept manually / paper, or electronically. If kept electronically, or if E-SOPs, etc., are used, then 21 CFR 11 becomes operable, and any computer systems used to generate, use, save, change those e-records / e-signatures must be validated, to include Part 11 issues, e.g., audit trails, date / time stamping, et al. That would include the three pieces of equipment you mention; if they generate an e-record to be used in proving CGMP compliance (to 820) to be retained in the DHR, etc., then they have to include Part 11 issues as part of the required validation. Since all equipment must be validated, and all software / firmware must be validated. If the equipment uses software to run, but not to generate records (i.e., you record the information to set or run the equipment and capture any data manually (e.g., manually write info on the traveler), then the equipment and its software would be validated as normally (e.g., IQ, OQ, PQs), but Part 11 elements would not be part of the validation. Part 11 only becomes a requirement if you are using e-records and/or e-signatures in lieu of paper records and/or manual signatures, to prove or satisfy a CGMP requirement / provide a CGMP record.

QUES:  Thanks a lot John for the Answer 🙂 To give you a clearer picture, We have SAP which creates the batch number, expiry date, units to be produced etc and sends to SCADA. Machines receive this information from SCADA. So there is no communication from Machine Control system to SAP. What else SCADA communicates to Machines & vice versa? Recipe Name, good/bad items produced, Machine states(Running/stopped/aborted, etc.) but no Alarms are communicated. Also, there is a significant amount of Machine Parameters configurations (also a part of Machine recipe) needed to produce the Items, remain in machine. It's not recorded anywhere else, only in machine. But machines don't have Electronic signature at any stage. SCADA also maintains the EBR. Like line clearance, goods received etc Electronic signature is maintained in SCADA to validate the changes. We also have Electronic Document Management System where we have DMR, DHF. Change control is maintained in this EDMS.  

ANS:  Basically what you described fits what I sent you previously.  Not only does the computer systems need to be validated per 21 CFR 820, but those computer / electronic systems involved in facilitating and/or  documenting CGMP actions (if any) also need to be validated to 21 CFR 11 on top of the general CGMP validation (I usually add Pt 11 test cases to the OQ).

-- Jel@jelincoln.com

Also, where validated machines generate data that needs to be retained in the GMP record, instead of the normal data integrity requirement of two signature, one entry, one verification, only one signature is required, one verification. -- JEL 09/19/2023