Seriously folks the concept of detention, employed by FDA, is not unlike the pain associated with the after school detention of this doctor’s wayward youth. The principal places you in a room and you cannot leave. However, the FDA’s pain will hit a device manufacturer squarely in the pocket.
In searching through FDA’s warning letter database for this week’s guidance, the doctor came upon a recent letter issued to Lucky Board Manufacturing. Unfortunately, Lucky Board Manufacturing just may be contemplating a name change to “Unlucky” Board Manufacturing. You see, Lucky has been manufacturing and selling surgical masks without one minor little detail; they lack pre-market approval as required by the Act. Now granted, surgical masks can be categorized as a “fungible” (look-it-up) commodity; however, approval/clearance is still required to enter these devices into commerce in the United States. Just maybe, someone at Lucky might want to consider reading 21 CFR, Part 807.
Given the serious nature of the violations of the Act, surgical masks manufactured by your firm are subject to refusal of admission under section 801(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 381(a), in that they appear to be adulterated. As a result, FDA may take steps to refuse these products, known as “detention without physical examination,” until these violations are corrected. In order to remove the devices from detention, your firm should provide a written response to this Warning Letter as described below and correct the violations described in this letter. We will notify you if your firm’s response appears to be adequate, and we may need to re-inspect your firm’s facility to verify that the appropriate corrections and/or corrective actions have been made.
Additionally, the warning letter mitigation process is time consuming. For all of you wannabe CFOs out there, time equates to money. Duh, real rocket science from Dr. D. Seriously, warning letters are not resolved in a few days, a few weeks, or even a few months. Depending on the organization’s response and commitment, a warning letter could take a year or even longer to correct. I would think detention or the threat of detention would be sufficient to correct the behavior of noncompliance. Heck it worked for the doctor as a high school student.
In closing, thank you again for joining Dr. D and I hope you find value in the guidance provided. Until the next installment of DG – cheers from Dr. D. and best wishes for continued professional success.
References:
- Code of Federal Regulation. (2012, April). Title 21 Part 820: Quality system regulation. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.
- Devine, C. (2011). Devine guidance for complying with the FDA’s quality system regulation – 21 CFR, Part 820. Charleston, SC: Amazon.
- FDA – U.S. Food and Drug Administration Website. (2013, June). Warning letters. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/.
Related Articles
-
The new guidance is intended to establish confidence in automation used for production or quality assurance systems and describe various methods and testing activities that may be applied to establish computer software assurance and meet regulatory software validation requirements.
-
The guidance is intended to clarify the FDA’s approach for referencing the terms “device” and “counterfeit device” in FDA documents, as well as how the agency intends to interpret existing references to section 201(h) of the FD&C Act in guidance,…
-
On August 11, the FDA released a Final Guidance on Off-the-Shelf Software Use in Medical Devices, which supersedes Off-The-Shelf Software Use in Medical Devices issued September 27, 2019.
-
The UK MHRA has published “Software and Artificial Intelligence as a Medical Device.” The guidance document assembles previous guidances and regulatory requirements for SaMD and AIaMD devices seeking commercialization in the UK market.
