December 19, 2014

Medical Device Warning Letter Round-Up: FDA Won’t Take No For an Answer

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

This latest round of warning letters is all about pushback.

The FDA is not happy with the responses it received from Acme Monaco Corp., a New Britain, Connecticut-based manufacturer of medical guardwires for cardiovascular and urologic use.

In an April 28 letter, the agency reminds the company that an earlier FDA inspection revealed that these devices are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(h), in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the Quality System regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 820.

Mar Cor Purification in Minnesota was hit with an April 17 letter that found fault with, among other things, its CAPA, complaint handling, and document control. In addition, the FDA said Mar Cor’s March responses were inadequate. Mar Cor manufactures water purificaiton systems used to diagnose diseases.

FDAlogoHeading over to Wisconsin, a March FDA letter hit Cytophill Inc, a manufacturer or synthetic bone graft material, bone void fillers, and an intranasal splint, for a number of shortcomings.

In addition to hitting the firm for below mark CAPA, process and storage controls, FDA warned it about failure to:

  • Control environmental conditions
  • Validate a process whose results cannot be verified by subsequent inspection and test
  • Establish procedures to handle changes to a specification.

As many former FDA inspectors have told us over the years, a bad response to a warning letter is a really bad idea. Most FDA inspectors will work with you if they believe you are acting in good faith to correct the problem. It’s not unlike the IRS. If you call them and work out a lenient, reasonable payment plan, everything’s fine. Unless you miss a payment or two without giving them a heads-up. That’s when the trouble usually begins.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

The Six C’s of Document Management Best Practices for Life Sciences

Jeff Mazik, Vice President, Life Science Solutions, AssurX

Jeff Mazik, Vice President, Life Science Solutions, AssurX

Implementing a best practice solution for any quality process is essential to help an emerging Life Science company insure compliance and quality for their organization.  Especially when it comes to Document Management, regulatory agencies in the Life Science industries expect that your company has proper controls in place that insure the documents you are using have been properly authored, reviewed and approved and that your staff have been adequately trained on them and, of course, can easily access and use the effective documents at all times.  As documents are truly the backbone of all of your quality processes, this is indeed appropriate.  For if your documents are not controlled, neither will be your processes.

Utilizing an electronic Document Management System is the first step.  A workflow and task-based electronic system can provide you with a central repository for all documents and gives you the potential to implement an infrastructure that allows for much more control and interoperability than if you try to manage documents manually or on a server file share.  Some advantages of using a workflow based process include activity reminders for those tasked to do work, automated activities and notifications, virtual collaborations, metrics tracking, and providing overall increased control and visibility.

electronic document managementMany start-ups and emerging companies in the Life Science industries are constrained in a number of ways, particularly in funds and resources.  This can present many hurdles in trying to get a useful Document Management System in place.  In order to minimize costs and expending copious resources, some options to consider include: selecting a solution that can effectively address multiple business or quality needs to increase ROI, a solution that provides a lower cost option of hosting off-site (e.g. Cloud based solution), one that utilizes non-proprietary infrastructures, and one that can be configured without requiring programming resources.

A best practice approach for implementing an electronic Document Management system can be summed up into “Six C’s”.  These six terms help identify the areas that should be addressed when implementing an electronic Document Management system.  The Six C’s are:

Consistency:  Use the system as a central repository for all documents, implementing consistent workflow path(s) for documents depending on document type.  Use consistent Document Templates and standardize attributes (e.g. approvers, periodic review timelines) for similar document types.

Communication: Information must be easily available to your staff throughout the
workflow process, allowing virtual collaboration no matter where the team is located.  Furthermore, those people in this document review/approval process that are assigned tasks must be provided communication and follow-up reminders to insure their tasks are being completed on-time and never “fall through the cracks”.  Finally, notifications of new and revised documents must be communicated effectively to the training organization to insure requirement employee training is accomplished.

Client experience: The electronic system should incorporate end-user functionality that increases performance and acceptance such as: including built-in instructions within the process itself as well as visual hints or cues that make it obvious to the user where the document is in the process and what to do next.  Also, provide varied search functionalities and options that allow users to easily find documents they need.  Plus, automate as many activities as possible, especially those that can be easily forgotten by a user, causing re-work.  

Control: As with any validated system, changes to the process need to be controlled and managed under change control procedures.  Control of the “original” electronic document files themselves is also an important concept.  Insuring there is no back-door to access/change documents at a file server level or shared folder perspective is very important.

Compliance: The electronic system must meet all applicable regulatory requirements (e.g. 21 CFR Part 11).  Also, implementing reminders and escalations when tasks are due (or late!) helps you to stay in compliance to objectives and agreed upon timelines.  Furthermore, by implementing an effective integration with a training management system allows you to stay compliant with employee training requirements.

Configurability: The solution you use should be easily configured, maintained, and updated, breaking you from a strong reliance on costly programmers, consultants, and specialized IT resources to make a change or to add a step to the process.

If you are interested in getting more detailed information on the Six C’s of Document Management Best Practices please request to view our recent 60-minute “Life Science Best Practices for Document Management” Webinar here.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Partnership of Productivity Tools Will Allow You to Focus More on Creating Quality Products

Dennis Payton, Vice President of Product Marketing and Development, Expandable Software, Inc.

Dennis Payton, Vice President of Product Marketing and Development, Expandable Software, Inc.

In 1908, the first Model T was created and more than 15 million were sold through mid-1927, proving that a focus on your core product can create a tidal wave of success. The plan and processes Henry Ford put in place to create the Model T, revolutionized the automotive industry. Having a streamlined set of processes is still important for manufacturing a quality product today. The Model T not only tells the story of efficiency and mass production, it also depicts the story of quality proving that they are not mutually exclusive.

The medical device industry is no doubt tough to do business in, whether it’s the constant threat from multiple competitors or the constant scrutiny from the FDA with 21 CFR Part 820 and Part 11, it’s an eat or get eaten world. Non-compliance with the FDA can result in a number of costly consequences including audits, recalls, production stoppage, substantial fines and potential lawsuits.

With the advancements of technology we are now able to efficiently control and monitor the process with tools such as an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system combined with a Quality Management System (QMS). Having the right partnership between your ERP and QMS vendors allows you to create a reliable support system.

erp/qmsimage

With such a support system in place your company can in turn focus more on your initial quality system, developing a sound and innovative product. The theory being that creating a quality product begins with the inception of the product. A house built on sand, no matter how nice it looks, is not going to work, and the same goes for a medical device, a quality product should be the goal from the very beginning. With today’s tools Henry Ford could create the ultimate formula: efficiency + variety + quality = success

A more detailed paper, Effective Compliance Programs Demand Sound Strategy, Strong Partners written by Michael Causey, outlines some of the key advantages your company stands to gain by selecting and ERP system that is integrated with your QMS. The never-ending challenge of creating and monitoring a quality system can contribute to your company’s increased regulatory compliance and customer satisfaction.

Get the full detailed White Paper here

About the Authors

Dennis Payton is Vice President of product marketing and development with Expandable Software Inc. He has 23 years of engineering, product management and executive management experience. He holds a BS in electrical engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Louis Obispo, and post studies at Stanford University, University of California, Santa Cruz, and UC Berkley Haas School of Business.

Ryan Hussey is a marketing professional with Expandable Software, Inc. Mr. Hussey holds a BS of Business Marketing from San Jose State University and contributes personal time to coaching youth swimming classes and teams at local South Bay Area swim clubs.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

The Six C’s of Complaints Management Best Practices for Life Sciences

Jeff Mazik, Vice President, Life Science Solutions, AssurX

Jeff Mazik, Vice President, Life Science Solutions, AssurX

Companies in the Pharmaceutical, Medical Device, and Biotech industries must meet many regulatory requirements for a number of regulatory agencies. Chief among these are requirements from the FDA, as well as from ISO, plus they must meet expectations from a number of other regulatory agencies, depending on the particular market. Implementing best practice solutions for a company’s quality processes is essential to insure compliance and quality for the organization.

When it comes to Complaints Management, a best practice approach can be summed up into the Six C’s of Complaints Management. These six terms help identify the areas that need to be addressed when initiating a best practice complaints management system.

The Six C’s are:

Collection: Collect as much information at intake of the complaint as possible. This is a major customer “touch point” in the complaints resolution process, so don’t waste it. Furthermore, the collection of incoming complaints must be reviewed to determine if the communication is truly a complaint. Depending on the determination of that review, handle the situation accordingly.

complaintConsistency: Incoming complaints must be recorded with consistency in the information collected. To help facilitate this, questions to ask the customer must be designed to be consistent across similar events, allowing for accurate trending of product problems. Also, steps taken downstream in resolving the complaints process should be guided by providing consistent information to all people in the complaint resolution process.

Communication: Information collected during intake and throughout the process must be easily available to everyone in the complaint resolution process. Furthermore, those people in the complaints resolution process that are assigned tasks must be provided communication and reminders to insure their tasks are being completed on-time and never “fall through the cracks”. From a customer satisfaction perspective, the customer reporting the event must be informed of the status of the complaint using form letters or via online queries using a web portal.

Compliance: The electronic system must meet all applicable regulatory requirements. Furthermore, a consistent approach must be used to determine how soon complaints should be reported to the applicable regulatory agency.

Control: As with any validated system, changes to the process need to be controlled and managed under change control procedures. However, controlling one’s business in terms of allocating available resources, trending historical complaint attributes, and proper management of returned products is also essential for the business to succeed.

Configurability: The solution you use should be easily configured, maintained, and updated, breaking you from a strong reliance on costly programmers, consultants, and specialized IT resources to make a change or to add a step to the process.

If you are interested in getting more detailed information on the Six C’s of Complaints Management Best Practices please request to view our recent 60-minute “Life Science Best Practices for Handling Complaints” Webinar here.

 

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

CDRH 2014 Strategic Priorities Promise Improved IDE, PMA Regulatory Climate

Tamar June

Tamar June, VP, Strategic Marketing, AssurX, Inc.

The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) will focus on encouraging medical device innovation and speeding clinical trials in the coming years, according to its 2014-2015 Strategic Priorities report released Feb. 5.

To help encourage that innovation, CDRH says it’s going to work to improve the consistency of the Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) process, especially in the areas of consistency and speed with which it handles applications. CDRH also pledges to find ways to encourage more early IDE studies — especially for those with medical devices aimed at the U.S. patient marketplace.

The report also says CDRH will try to find a better balance between premarket and postmarket data requirements.

CDRH sets measurable metric goals for improving IDE cycles:

  • By September 30, 2014, reduce the number of IDEs requiring more than two cycles to an appropriate full approval decision by 25 percent compared to FY 2013 performance.
  • By September 30, 2014, for disapproved IDEs, offer all sponsors a teleconference or in-person meeting to occur within 10 business days of the IDE decision.
  • By June 30, 2015, reduce the number of IDEs requiring more than two cycles to an appropriate full approval decision by 50 percent compared to FY 2013 performance.

Time to IDE Approval:

  • By September 30, 2014, reduce the overall median time to appropriate full IDE approval by 25 percent compared to FY 2013 performance.
  • By June 30, 2015, reduce the overall median time to full appropriate IDE approval to 30 days.
  • In FY 2013 (as of 12/11/2013), 45% of IDEs received a full approval decision within 2 cycles and median time to full IDE approval was 174 days.

2014 ClockBy June 30, 2015, the report says CDRH intends to increase the number of early feasibility/first-in-human IDE studies submitted to each premarket division compared to FY 2013 performance. CDRH promises several action steps here, including:

  • Establish in the Office of Device Evaluation a premarket clinical trials program responsible for the oversight and performance of the IDE Program and the development and implementation of policies that contribute to the timely initiation and successful execution of medical device clinical trials.
  • Formalize the incorporation of our benefit-risk framework, including patient-specific factors such as tolerance for risk and perspective on benefit, into the IDE process.
  • Establish a process to efficiently and objectively resolve application-specific IDE issues to reduce the number of multi-cycle IDEs.
  • Develop a clinical trials education and training program for CDRH review staff, managers, and industry.
  • Develop real-time metrics to track CDRH and industry IDE and clinical trial performance.

Turning to premarket and postmarket data requirements, the CDRH call to arms lays down more goals:

  • By December 31, 2014, review 50 percent of device types subject to a PMA that have been on the market to determine whether or not to shift some premarket data requirements to the postmarket setting or to pursue down classification, and communicate those decisions to the public.
  • By June 30, 2015, review 75 percent of device types subject to a PMA that have been on the market to determine whether or not to shift some premarket data requirements to the postmarket setting or to pursue down classification, and communicate those decisions to the public.
  • By December 31, 2015, review 100 percent of device types subject to a PMA that have been on the market to determine whether or not to shift some premarket data requirements to the postmarket setting or to pursue down classification, and communicate those decisions to the public.

CDRH plans several specific actions to help attain those targets, including:

  • Develop and seek public comment on a framework for when it is appropriate to shift premarket data collection to the postmarket setting.
  • Conduct a retrospective review of all PMA device types to determine whether or not to shift some premarket data requirements to the postmarket setting or to down classify device types in light of our current understanding of the technology.
  • Implement a mechanism to prospectively assure the appropriate balance of premarket and postmarket data requirements for new devices subject to a PMA.
  • Using existing authorities, develop and seek public comment on a new pathway to market for devices subject to a PMA that address an unmet public health need by shifting appropriate premarket data needs to the postmarket setting and incorporating features of the Innovation Pathway pilots.

The medical device industry no doubt applauds the majority of these goals. Now it’s time for CDRH to roll up its sleeves and get them done.

 

 

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Interpreting the FDA View of Medical Device Design Controls

Dennis Payton, Vice President of Product Marketing and Development, Expandable Software, Inc.

Dennis Payton, Vice President of Product Marketing and Development, Expandable Software, Inc.

Some of the shortest descriptions in the FDA CFR 21 Part 820 Quality System regulation are found in Sec. 820.30 and Sec. 820.40 totaling about a page of written language around Design Controls and Document Controls. However short, these two sections can be the most complex aspects of Medical Device controls when actual complying with the regulation. Fortunately, the FDA does give a bit more background to help a new medical device company understand these two key elements (see Medical Device Quality Systems Manual, A Small Entity Compliance Guide) but again with the detailed complexities, even those few pages of guidance (covered in section 9 Document and Change Control) fall short of coverage needed to understand the impact a company’s Medical Device Quality System. The good news is that there are some very good tools that can help mitigate these complexities and streamline controls. The bad news is that it still takes a very strong detailed and sustained effort to insure these complex controls are in place for continued success and compliance with regulation.

With a wide variety of Medical Device suppliers there comes a wide variety of processes, procedures and controls that are developed specific to a business and to the Medical Device(s) being produced. It is important to understand how the FDA tries to normalize a specific business to the regulation when auditing that business for Design Control compliance. Having a bit of understanding of their view will help make for a much smoother comparison, analogy and a much cleaner and successful audit of a company’s design processes.

A simplistic model can be derived from the 820.30 regulation that the FDA may use to assure design coverage and compliance of a device design and/or manufacture to the regulation. The design and development model can be graphically depicted and loosely linked to the regulation as follows:

FDA Design and Development Planning Model

Diagraming out the design flow is helpful in seeing a more detailed picture of the flow and validation and verification of a product against its intended use model and specifically important to the FDA that each and every stage of the process is well reviewed and documented.

Again, like the FDA regulation on Design Controls, this is a very short summary of complex processes, document definitions, controls and general management & approvals that there have been volumes of books written. The objective should be to have a very good understanding of how the FDA or other regulatory entity views the medical device controls such that a business can demonstrate how their particular controls map into the regulatory model. A logical analogy of a business’ design and development model should be able to map to the regulatory normalized base line model(s), in doing so, will result in smoother audits with a higher degree of success and hopefully (something the regulatory folks don’t really care about but as a business we all do) a lower expense/time in managing through the audit process.

A fuller descriptive paper outlines some key points in the development of a Medtech-specific design control with a product development process and how to maximize the use of enterprise level business tools that accelerate process, streamline audits and make for a much smoother compliance. The brief outline here is a key element to a more streamlined and smoother compliance with regulation keeping in mind not just the business drivers but also the FDA’s “normalized view” of design controls.

Get the full detailed White Paper here

About the Author

Dennis Payton is Vice President of Product Marketing and Development with Expandable Software Inc. He has 24 years of engineering, product management and executive management experience. He holds a BS in electrical engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Louis Obispo, and post studies at Stanford University, University of California, Santa Cruz, and UC Berkley Haas School of Business.

 

Copyright UBM Canon. Used by permission.

 

 

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

FDA VCIP Program: Too Much Stick, Not Enough Carrot?

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

It’s a growing trend in these United States: paying extra for convenience such as bypassing the riffraff in airport security lines, or whizzing past mere mortal motorists on pristine for-pay express lanes.

Where I live in the Washington, D.C. area, the new express road program in Northern Virginia’s clotted traffic arteries appears to be a hit. For a buck or two, you get out of the more crowded free lanes. And you are allowed to go 65 miles an hour, while the peasants are held to 55 mph!

On the other hand, the express lane program at Reagan National Airport doesn’t appear to be generating much traffic.

If the FDA’s new VCIP (Voluntary Compliance Improvement Program) is trying to ride the “pay for convenience” bandwagon, early anecdotal evidence suggests they’re resembling airports more than highways. We’re hearing many in industry say the VCIP program doesn’t offer enough of an incentive to take on the extra work.

Undaunted, FDA released earlier this week a document that reads like a nice, bureaucrat gently trying to convince industry to give the program a try.

The joint pilot project housed in the Center for Devices and Radiological health (CDRH) and Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) “differs from the FDA’s traditional oversight model by allowing firms to voluntarily self identify and correct possible regulatory violations instead of undergoing FDA inspection.”

Regulated entities have to apply to participate, but those with violations that raise “imminent” public health concerns needn’t bother.

Here’s the FDA’s big carrot: “The FDA supports using new approaches to help companies come into compliance. These approaches benefit industry and may decrease the number of inspections that the FDA performs or permit the agency to focus on manufacturers with serious and ongoing problems.”

Pacemaker150Hmm. I guess I’m not super surprised that initial industry enthusiasm appears weak. To my knowledge, FDA has not released any statistics about participation. I’m basing my very early days’ assessment on discussions with medical device firms and consultants at recent trade shows and the like. I could be wrong, and VCIP might turn out to be a big hit.

If you want to get picked, know that FDA will identify manufacturers eligible to participate in VCIP through its 2014 inspection work plan and offer them an opportunity to apply rather. For the pilot, the FDA will choose three to five applicants. Of course, their feedback, whether official or in trade show hallway conversations, will tell us a lot about the merits of VCIP.

While it promises some benefits down the road, initial participation in VCIP sounds like it will just add another layer to a device manufacturer’s compliance program. VCIP participants will be required to retain an outside expert consultant to assess their manufacturing and quality assurance systems and to monitor and certify that they are following program requirements. Firms must also demonstrate the ability to define problems, analyze root causes, create appropriate corrective actions, and verify that the actions taken were effective.

If a firm does not meet its commitments under the VCIP, or if the FDA and the firm disagree about any of the results, then the firm may be removed from the program and undergo FDA inspection, which could lead to regulatory action. If a manufacturer ends its participation in the VCIP, it would be subject to FDA inspection and any resulting regulatory action.

FDA gets to the potentially big benefits toward the end of the new VCIP document. If you are selected and pass the tests, your firm “will not be subject to routine surveillance inspection while program participation is underway.” The exemption will be good for two years after a manufacturer successfully completes the program. FDA says it will also expedite review of export certificate requests and prioritize device and pre-amendment determination requests from program participants.

Clearly it’s too early to judge whether VCIP will be a success. And FDA is to be applauded, I think, for trying something a bit new.

Still, here’s hoping VCIP becomes the equivalent of sailing down the relatively empty highway at 65 mph, while others are slogging through heavy traffic at lower speeds.

 

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

FDA Looks Overseas, Doesn’t Like What it Sees

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

Michael Causey, Editor & Publisher, eDataIntegrityReport.com

Thanks to the folks in Washington, most anything having to do with the federal government is closed until further notice. That means fixtures like the Grand Canyon and the Library of Congress (LOC) are off-limits.

The FDA is feeling the pinch too. It’s had to send about half of its staff home, according to RAPS. FDA’s website won’t be updated, either.

The lion’s share of the pre-shutdown device-related warning letters involved overseas entities. A good example comes in a September 5, 2013 letter to Vincent Medical Manufacturing Company, based in Dong Guan City, China.

FDA kicked the tires at this manufacturer of breathing circuits and sterile fluid management injection systems, and didn’t like some of what it saw. For example, Vincent’s Corrective and Prevention Action (CAPA) failed to establish and maintain a number of procedures.  Vincent was also charged with failing to ensure that inspection and test procedures could be validated with a “high degree of assurance.”

FDA also chided Vincent for “failure to establish and maintain procedures to ensure that participants at each design review include representatives of all functions concerned with the design stage being reviewed.”

FDAlogoFDA sent an August 26 letter to Bio Focus Co., based in Uiwang, Republic of South Korea.  FDA hit that firm for an inadequate CAPA program, process validation, device design validation, management of suppliers and other outside vendors, and environmental controls, among several other issues. Bio Focus manufactures Sure-Aid pregnancy tests.

In Taiwan, FDA challenged St. Shine Optical, manufacturer of contact lenses, for several shortcomings. Shortcomings cited in the August 26 warning letter include: inadequate validation reports, design control procedures, and process controls.

Earlier in August, FDA issued a warning letter to Denmark-based Dako Denmark, manufacturer of the HER2 CISH pharmaDx kit. In the August 21 letter, FDA noted that the firm closed six CAPA’s, but failed to provide any evidence that the CAPA’s were effective.  FDA also hit the firm for inadequate process validation protocol, and complaint processing.

FDA returned to the U.S. with a September 20 letter to Medical Device Resource Corporation. The Livermore, California-based maker of the LS2 Aspirator, and the K Pump was issued a warning letter because it’s process validation, outside products, and other product controls were found lacking.

Elsewhere in California, Medtronic MiniMed was hit with, among others issues, inadequate CAPA, device control, and complaint management. That came in a September 19 warning letter.

While medical device makers may not be overly worried about a hobbled FDA, let’s all agree that it would be nice someday to be allowed to visit the Grand Canyon and the LOC again. Those are both bi-partisan places, right?

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Former FDA Inspector’s Crystal Ball: Cloudy With a Chance of Inspected Meatballs

Patrick Stone

Patrick Stone, President, TradeStoneQA

The FDA’s “Food Police” will be in full force to secure budget funds for food safety initiatives for FY 2014 as mandated by congress. More than half of the operating funds will be earmarked for food work. International food inspections will surely be a focus area for the coming year. The inspection goals/FTEs will be set low enough for the field staff to meet or exceed expectations. This again will ensure a steady flow of billions for operating costs. In recent years large chunks of the FDA budget were set for new facilities completion and the dreaded infrastructure technology (IT) upgrades which barely seem to keep up with private industry.

Opioid labeling rules newly penned will assist in identifying and tracking legal drugs, however Internet and backstreet sales will continue to plague the market. Insurance fraud is making it easier for mail-order diversion and out right second hand sales of the legally obtained opioids. So until the insurance scams are tapered this effort will only increase operating cost for the opioid manufacturers.

A medical device tax and new user fees will be required for doing business in our domestic market. It seems that every few years the fee structure increases and becomes more complex. Maybe this is part of the reason our health care cost are always going up exponentially. What will they think of next to add to the user fee list?

compounding pharmacyThe agency has issued product specific sterile drug consent decrees and lengthy 483s for cGMP violations across the nation. There are a few sterile drug manufacturers that judging by the 483 wording will be handed consent decrees very soon. These firms are major market shareholders that have had ample time for remediation without compliance. The recalls from these same firms have been persistent all year.

The great 2013 compounding pharmacy blitz and new regulations request for these manufacturers was not so much as shock and even less awe. The faster FDA defines what compounding drug manufacturing is and provides lengthy guidance on how it should not be done in a compounding pharmacy setting, the faster we will see market self-compliance. Compounding pharmacies must recognize themselves as manufacturing entities and adhere to strict USP <797> and 21 CFR 200 standards that are costly.

Compounding pharmacies are the first line of defense when it comes to the drug shortage so they must operate in strict compliance with sterile the drug cGMP systems approach. More patients will have adverse events and possibly die from non-compliant/contaminated compounded sterile drug preparations if the mindset of the manufacturers is not changed. The State board of Pharmacy cannot shield compounders from civil or criminal liability and the FDA may soon have what it needs for implementing jurisdictional authority.

Here’s to an exciting 2014!

Patrick Stone is the author of Bubble Gum Badge – An FDA His-Story. You can also follow him on Twitter.

 

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare

Unique Device Identifier (UDI) Rule Now a Reality for Manufacturers

Jeff Mazik, Vice President, Life Science Solutions, AssurX

Jeff Mazik, Vice President, Life Science Solutions, AssurX

On Friday morning, September 20, 2013, at the UDI User Conference in Baltimore, MD, Jay Crowley, FDA’s Senior Advisor for patient safety, CDRH, raised a glass to toast the completion of a decade long journey. He, his staff and members from the Medical Device industry and solution providers celebrated the announcement of the publishing of the Final Rule for the establishment of the Unique Device Identification system. The final rule will be officially published Sept 24, 2013 on the U.S. Federal Register.

That date is an important one as it establishes the start date for the timeline for all medical devices to be coded with a Unique Device Identifier (“UDI”), which is to be printed in plain text and barcode (or other AIDC technology) on the device’s label. Manufacturers of Class III medical devices will have one year to comply with the rule. Class II and Class I devices which are used as implants and/or are life supporting/sustaining in nature have 2 years to comply. All other Class II devices must comply within 3 years of the publish date and all Class I and unclassified medical devices must comply within 5 years of the published date, per the Final Rule.

A number of changes were made from the original proposed rule, but one proposed requirement which was hotly debated by industry was the proposed required date format. The original date format on labeling was proposed to be the US-centric “MMM DD, YYYY” format.  However, with the final rule, the requirement has been changed to the more global-friendly (and ISO compliant): YYYY-MM-DD

UDI barcodeFurthermore, this rule institutes a new FDA Global Unique Identification database (or “GUDID”, pronounced “Good ID”), into which all manufacturers (or “labelers” as defined in the rule) must populate their unique Device Identification numbers. This database will also require providing FDA required attribute information. Once populated, the GUDID database will be used by healthcare providers and the public to search for and gain information about the device.

The initial goal of this rule is to be able to better identify devices in the healthcare area, to help healthcare providers identify items in cases of adverse effects/recalls, as well as to better understand and manage their inventory.

AssurX will be working with current and future customers to use our solution to help them comply with their UDI management and eventual submission to FDA’s GUDID database.

TwitterFacebookGoogle+LinkedInEmailPrintFriendlyShare