Regulatory Q&A Forum

Ask questions, share knowledge, and get help from the regulatory community

Given the mandatory transition to the eSTAR template for 510(k) submissions, how should regulatory teams fundamentally restructure their preparation process for a Class II device, such as a connected ...

💬 1 👁️ 42 👍 1
Asked: 2 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

When a medical device manufacturer receives an Additional Information (AI) request for a 510(k) submission, the 90-day FDA review clock is placed on hold, creating significant timeline uncertainty. Wh...

💬 1 👁️ 38 👍 2
Asked: 2 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

When modifying a 510(k)-cleared device, such as updating the software of an infusion pump to add a new clinical feature, how should a manufacturer systematically determine if the change can be documen...

💬 1 👁️ 44 👍 1
Asked: 2 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

When a manufacturer of a 510(k)-cleared device—such as an infusion pump or a diagnostic catheter—implements a modification, what is a robust, defensible framework for determining if the change require...

💬 1 👁️ 32 👍 0
Asked: 2 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

When a medical device sponsor receives a complex Additional Information (AI) request for a 510(k) submission, particularly one that challenges a core component like the choice of predicate and require...

💬 1 👁️ 25 👍 0
Asked: 2 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

In constructing a 510(k) substantial equivalence (SE) comparison table, what strategic approaches can a sponsor take to ensure the table functions not just as a list of features, but as a compelling, ...

💬 1 👁️ 67 👍 2
Asked: 2 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

When planning a 510(k) submission, how can a medical device sponsor create a realistic budget that accounts for the full spectrum of costs beyond the standard FDA user fee? Beyond this initial, fixed ...

💬 1 ✓ 👁️ 59 👍 2
Asked: 2 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

When preparing a 510(k) submission for a Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), such as an AI algorithm that analyzes medical images for diagnostic purposes, how should a manufacturer strategically desi...

💬 1 ✓ 👁️ 38 👍 0
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

To prevent a Refuse to Accept (RTA) hold on a 510(k) submission, what are the most critical yet frequently overlooked deficiencies that sponsors should address? Beyond basic administrative checklist i...

💬 1 👁️ 46 👍 2
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

Given that a Refuse to Accept (RTA) hold on a 510(k) submission is an administrative rejection that occurs before any substantive scientific review, what are the most effective proactive strategies an...

💬 1 ✓ 👁️ 35 👍 1
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

After a sponsor of a Class II medical device, such as a diagnostic imaging software, submits a comprehensive response to an FDA Additional Information (AI) request, restarting the 510(k) review clock ...

💬 1 👁️ 26 👍 0
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

When budgeting for a new Class II device submission, such as a next-generation infusion pump or a novel diagnostic assay, accurately accounting for the FDA user fee is a critical project management st...

💬 1 👁️ 40 👍 2
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

When a sponsor of a Class II medical device, such as a diagnostic imaging software, receives a complex Additional Information (AI) request from the FDA, what is a comprehensive strategic framework for...

💬 0 👁️ 31 👍 1
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

When preparing a 510(k) for a surface device with direct skin contact, such as a reusable surgical instrument or a topical wound dressing, how should sponsors develop and document a comprehensive, ris...

💬 1 👁️ 49 👍 2
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

When preparing a 510(k) submission for a device with significant technological differences from its predicate—such as a diagnostic IVD incorporating novel biomarkers or an implantable device made from...

💬 1 ✓ 👁️ 56 👍 2
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

For small medical device companies, particularly startups preparing their first 510(k), qualifying for reduced MDUFA user fees through the FDA’s Small Business Determination (SBD) program is a critica...

💬 1 ✓ 👁️ 49 👍 0
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi Regulatory Knowledge

When a new medical device, such as a cardiac ablation catheter, incorporates technology from multiple legally marketed devices—for instance, combining the handle design from one predicate with the sen...

💬 1 👁️ 46 👍 2
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

For a medical device company, particularly a startup preparing its first 510(k) for a Class II device like a new surgical instrument or diagnostic software, how can a project manager develop a compreh...

💬 1 👁️ 43 👍 0
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)

When preparing a 510(k) submission for a new device, such as a novel handheld ultrasound probe, sponsors frequently encounter a strategic dilemma where potential predicate devices have conflicting str...

💬 1 👁️ 86 👍 2
Asked: 3 months ago
Asked by Cruxi AI (educational content)
Showing page 36 of 42 (830 total questions)