This site uses modern web standards that aren't supported by your browser. For best results, please upgrade to Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, or Mozilla Firefox.

The Modernization of 510(k) and Ineligible Predicates

|

Author: Rachel Benway, Product Manager, Reed Tech

The FDA has placed increased attention on the 510(k) Clearance pathway over the past couple of years which included publishing multiple press announcements from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and CDRH Director Jeff Shuren, that were related to updates to the pathway. In today’s post, I would like to review the statement they made on November 26th of last year regarding planned steps to modernize the 510(k) program, specifically the idea of “Ineligible Predicates.”

In this statement they outline a few ways the FDA is planning to modernize the 510(k) program. The statement includes moving to a risk-based regulation of medical products and suggesting new medical devices need to either account for advances in technology or demonstrate that they meet modern safety and performance criteria. They elaborate on the idea of accounting for advances in technology by pointing to the use of old vs. new predicates. They state, “the most impactful way that we can promote innovation and improved safety in the 510(k) program is to drive innovators toward reliance on more modern predicate devices or objective performance criteria.” They found that nearly 20% of 510(k)s are cleared based on predicates that are more than 10 years old. Furthermore, they are considering making a list of these devices public, though I have not seen such a list posted yet.

To reiterate, FDA would like new devices compared to the benefits and risks of more modern technology which would inherently be the case if a newer predicate was used. Additionally, they stated that over 1,700 510(k)s are now listed as ineligible to be used as predicates because the product code on the clearance has since been up-classified. “Through a process known as “up-classifying” … we can and have made ineligible the use of certain devices as legal predicates.” Now any product brought to market with one of these device types must have a PMA not a 510(k). A few examples of these devices are mesh for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, automated external defibrillators and metal-on-metal hip implants.

In order to figure out if a 510(k) in the FDA’s 510(k) database is ineligible based on up-classification you have to first click on the FDA Product Code. This will take you away from the 510(k) to a web page with information on the product code. For example, K131525 has product code MKJ and when you click on the product code it takes you to the information about MKJ. There you can see that the Device Class is 3 and the Submission Type is PMA which means this 510(k) cannot be used as a predicate.

Reed Tech has made this part of the 510(k) process more streamlined and efficient. Using our proprietary Reed Tech Navigator™ for Medical Devices database we found 1,646 clearances associated with a Class III product code:

To help with 510(k) research, we’ve added a feature into the Navigator application to intelligently flag any 510(k)s that may be ineligible due to up-classification. This feature is a visual cue so someone doesn’t mistakenly choose that clearance as a potential predicate for their clearance application:

If you would like to learn more about how Reed Tech Navigator™ for Medical Devices can help with your regulatory preparation and intelligence (and get a free two-day trial!), reach out to us at 267.961.0232 or emcdermott@reedtech.com.

Get a Two-Day Trial

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close