Regulatory Q&A Forum

When preparing a 510(k) for a modern device, such as a digital patient monitoring system, how can a sponsor establish substantial equivalence to a predicate cleared decades ago that lacks data for cur...

When preparing a 510(k) for a device with technological differences from its predicate, such as an orthopedic implant with a novel surface coating, how can a sponsor build a scientifically robust and ...

For a small medical device company aiming to qualify for the FDA’s Small Business Determination (SBD) program to reduce premarket submission user fees, what are the critical steps and common pitfalls ...

For manufacturers of novel food ingredients, such as a new plant-based protein or a fermentation-derived flavoring agent, what are the comprehensive steps and best practices for establishing a defensi...

While Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA) performance goals establish a target for the number of 'FDA days' to review a 510(k) submission, regulatory project managers must plan for a 'Total Tim...

For medical device companies, particularly startups, how is eligibility for the MDUFA small business discount on a 510(k) user fee determined, and what are the key procedural steps and common pitfalls...

While the FDA’s performance goal for a 510(k) review is 90 calendar days, this target often creates confusion as it only reflects the time the submission is actively under FDA review. The total time f...

For a sponsor developing a novel medical device, such as a Class II diagnostic Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), what are the best practices for structuring a Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) package to elic...

For a medical device startup planning a submission in fiscal year 2025 (which begins October 1, 2024), what are the critical strategic considerations and procedural steps for successfully obtaining Sm...

Beyond ensuring basic administrative requirements like correct eCopy formatting are met, what specific, high-risk documentation areas should sponsors meticulously review to prevent a 510(k) Refuse to ...

When preparing a 510(k) submission for a Class II device, such as an orthopedic implant or a device with software, what are the most common yet avoidable deficiencies that lead to a Refuse to Accept (...

How can a medical device sponsor develop a robust strategy to navigate the FDA's 510(k) Refuse to Accept (RTA) policy, moving beyond a simple checklist review to proactively prevent common administrat...

When a manufacturer of a 510(k)-cleared, Class II Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) plans a new software release, the decision between submitting a new 510(k) and documenting the changes via a Lette...

For a manufacturer of a low-risk medical device determined to be 510(k)-exempt, such as a manual surgical instrument or certain types of clinical decision support software, what are the comprehensive,...

A Refuse to Accept (RTA) decision from the FDA can significantly delay the 510(k) review process, often stemming from administrative or content-related omissions rather than fundamental scientific fla...

When preparing a 510(k), how can a sponsor craft a compelling substantial equivalence (SE) argument that thoroughly justifies the device's equivalence to a chosen predicate, particularly when there ar...

When preparing a 510(k) for a new device that introduces different technological characteristics compared to its predicate—such as a diagnostic tool using a novel software algorithm—what is a systemat...

For a resource-constrained small business planning its first 510(k) submission, how can a comprehensive and realistic budget be developed that accounts for the full spectrum of costs beyond the base F...

For a sponsor developing a novel medical device, such as a Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) with a machine-learning algorithm or a unique implantable device, what are the comprehensive best practic...

For a medical device sponsor preparing a 510(k) submission, how can a team move beyond a reactive, box-checking approach to FDA’s Refuse-to-Accept (RTA) checklist and instead build a robust, proactive...