Integrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring System For Professional Retrospective Use (QDL) — FDA decisions, comparisons and evidence
The acquired FDA endpoint has no selected substantially-equivalent K-number decisions under primary product code QDL during 2021–2025. Its latest selected record across the endpoint is dated 2018-11-02. Use that dated record only as historical context. Check the recorded scope and current route separately; these data do not provide a recent timing benchmark. The complete-year window has 0 decisions; the separate all-observed-date count is 1. These denominators describe different date ranges.
Evidence retrieved 2026-10-07. Source versions and topic-specific limits are listed below.
Recorded scope and its declared regulatory reference
An exact FDA-record regulation_number match to one acquired Title 21 section. Records with the same normalized scope definition, class, regulation and recorded submission/GMP flags are grouped. Sparse definitions and generic exemption boilerplate do not qualify. No text-similarity equivalence or legal applicability is inferred.
What scope does the FDA record describe?
An integrated continuous glucose monitoring system for professional retrospective use is a continuous glucose recording device indicated for the retrospective discovery, analysis, and interpretation of glycemic variability in persons age 2 and older for use by healthcare professionals to guide appropriate patient management. The system is also intended to interface with digitally connected devices.
Compare the proposed indication, user, anatomy, technology and operating principle with this actual scope; record differences and unresolved facts.
§ 862.1355 Integrated continuous glucose monitoring system. (a) Identification. An integrated continuous glucose monitoring system (iCGM) is intended to automatically measure glucose in bodily fluids continuously or frequently for a specified period of time. iCGM systems are designed to reliably and securely transmit glucose measurement data to digitally connected devices, including automated insulin dosing systems, and are intended to be used alone or in conjunction with these digitally connected medical devices for the purpose of managing a disease or condition related to glycemic control. (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are: (1) Design verification and validation must include the following: (i) Robust clinical data demonstrating the accuracy of the device in the intended use population. (ii) The clinical data must include a comparison between iCGM values and blood glucose values in specimens collected in parallel that are measured on an FDA-accepted laboratory-based glucose measurement method that is precise and accurate, and that is traceable to a higher order ( e.g., an internationally recognized reference material and/or method). (iii) The clinical data must be obtained from a clinical study designed to fully represent the performance of the device throughout the intended use population and throughout the measuring range of the device. (iv) Clinical study results must demonstrate consistent analytical and clinical performance throughout the sensor wear period. (v) Clinical study results in the adult population must meet the following performance requirements: (A) For all iCGM measurements less than 70 milligrams/deciliter (mg/dL), the percentage of iCGM measurements within ±15 mg/dL of the corresponding blood glucose value must be calculated, and the lower one-sided 95 percent confidence bound must exceed 85 percent. (B) For all iCGM measurements from 70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL, the percentage of iCGM measurements within ±15 percent of the corresponding blood glucose value must be calculated, and the lower one-sided 95 percent confidence bound must exceed 70 percent. (C) For all iCGM measurements greater than 180 mg/dL, the percentage of iCGM measurements within ±15 percent of the corresponding blood glucose value must be calculated, and the lower one-sided 95 percent confidence bound must exceed 80 percent. (D) For all iCGM measurements less than 70 mg/dL, the percentage of iCGM measurements within ±40 mg/dL of the corresponding blood glucose value must be calculated, and the lower one-sided 95 percent confidence bound must exceed 98 percent. (E) For all iCGM measurements from 70 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL, the percentage of iCGM measurements within ±40 percent of the corresponding blood glucose value must be calculated, and the lower one-sided 95 percent confidence bound must exceed 99 percent. (F) For all iCGM measurements greater than180 mg/dL, the percentage of iCGM measurements within ±40 percent of the corresponding blood glucose value must be calculated, and the lower one-sided 95 percent confidence bound must exceed 99 percent. (G) Throughout the device measuring range, the percentage of iCGM measurements within ±20 percent of the corresponding blood glucose value must be calculated, and the lower one-sided 95 percent confidence bound must exceed 87 percent. (H) When iCGM values are less than 70 mg/dL, no corresponding blood glucose value shall read above 180 mg/dL. (I) When iCGM values are greater than 180 mg/dL, no corresponding blood glucose value shall read less than 70 mg/dL. (J) There shall be no more than 1 percent of iCGM measurements that indicate a positive glucose rate of change greater than 1 mg/dL per minute (/min) when the corresponding true negative glucose rate of change is less than −2 mg/dL/min as determined by the corresponding blood glucose measurements. (K) There shall be no more than 1 percent of iCGM measurements that indicate a negative glucose rate of change less than −1 mg/dL/min when the corresponding true positive glucose rate of change is greater than 2 mg/dL/min as determined by the corresponding blood glucose measurements. (vi) Data demonstrating similar accuracy and rate of change performance of the iCGM in the pediatric population as compared to that in the adult population, or alternatively a clinical and/or technical justification for why pediatric data are not needed, must be provided and determined by FDA to be acceptable and appropriate. (vii) Data must demonstrate that throughout the claimed sensor life, the device does not allow clinically significant gaps in sensor data availability that would prevent any digitally connected devices from achieving their intended use. (2) Design verification and validation must include a detailed strategy to ensure secure and reliable means of iCGM data transmission to provide real-time glucose readings at clinically meaningful time intervals to devices intended to receive the iCGM glucose data. (3) Design verification and validation must include adequate controls established during manufacturing and at product release to ensure the released product meets the performance specifications as defined in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. (4) The device must demonstrate clinically acceptable performance in the presence of clinically relevant levels of potential interfering substances that are reasonably present in the intended use population, including but not limited to endogenous substances and metabolites, foods, dietary supplements, and medications. (5) The device must include appropriate measures to ensure that disposable sensors cannot be used beyond its claimed sensor wear period. (6) Design verification and validation must include results obtained through a usability study that demonstrates that the intended user can use the device safely and obtain the expected glucose measurement accuracy. (7) The labeling required under § 809.10(b) of this chapter must include a separate description of the following sensor performance data observed in the clinical study performed in conformance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section for each intended use population, in addition to separate sensor performance data for each different iCGM insertion or use sites ( e.g., abdomen, arm, buttock): (i) A description of the accuracy in the following blood glucose concentration ranges: less than 54 mg/dL, 54 mg/dL to less than 70 mg/dL, 70 to 180 mg/dL, greater than 180 to 250 mg/dL, and greater than 250 mg/dL. (ii) A description of the accuracy of positive and negative rate of change data. (iii) A description of the frequency and duration of gaps in sensor data. (iv) A description of the true, false, missed, and correct alert rates and a description of the available glucose concentration alert settings, if applicable. (v) A description of the observed duration of iCGM life for the device. [87 FR 9238, Feb. 18, 2022]
Read the identification, classification, conditions and referenced limitations in the cited section. A numeric reference match is not a buyer classification or exemption determination.
Deduplicate by official submission ID across the complete current manifest partitions. Select exact primary product code, K-number format and the stated SE decision codes with valid dates. Recent distributions use the five complete calendar years preceding the latest valid endpoint decision year. Partial-year counts compare equal January-to-cutoff periods. Quartiles use linear interpolation at (n-1)*p and are withheld below 20 valid date pairs. The analysis n describes only its declared complete-year window; selected_se_n separately counts all selected recorded dates through the cutoff.
1 selected records across all observed dates; 0 other/invalid identifier or decision-date records excluded. 0 missing or invalid date pairs in the five-year window.
Date fields: date_received → decision_date. Quantiles: Hyndman–Fan type 7: linear interpolation at (n − 1) × p; displayed to one decimal; n ≥ 20 valid pairs.
Receipt-to-decision calendar elapsed time includes time outside active FDA review; it is not FDA review time, a promised project timeline or an estimate of future clearance. This selected recorded cohort does not include all applications or establish a success probability, predicate suitability, market size, current market availability or legal authorization for another product.
Calculation fda-buyer-research-3 · database cutoff 2026-09-27. CSV rows identify each official K-number, cohort, date pair, exclusion reason and source version.
Separate partial-year update
2026 decisions through 2026-09-27
0 selected decisions from 2026-01-01 to 2026-09-27. The equivalent previous-year period contains 0 decisions through 2025-09-27. These counts describe the records; they are not market growth or submission success rates.
Named records to investigate
Latest decisions across the database
These dated records may come from 2026 or earlier years. They are a separate investigation list, not the five-year statistical cohort. Compare the actual indications and technology before considering a record as a comparator.
Official record / device
Recorded applicant
Decision
Recorded type
Calendar days
K182405 ↗Dexcom Pro Q Continuous Glucose Monitoring System
Dexcom, Inc.
2018-11-02
Traditional
59
Supporting documents actually acquired
Go beyond the database row
Read the source context, then compare the evidence with your design. Topic locations below are text matches, including possible limitations or negative statements; they are not a mandatory test list.
Integrated Continuous Glucose Monitoring System For Professional Retrospective Use [1]
Recorded scope
An integrated continuous glucose monitoring system for professional retrospective use is a continuous glucose recording device indicated for the retrospective discovery, analysis, and interpretation of glycemic variability in persons age 2 and older for use by healthcare professionals to guide appropriate patient management. The system is also intended to interface with digitally connected devices. [1]
Use this checklist to gather your business or product details before speaking with a specialist. The items below explain what to record and suggest useful supporting documents. You can add your own answers in the editable project brief.
Which specific part of the recorded scope fits or differs?
Put your proposed label and design beside the quoted definition. Record matching facts, differences and missing facts separately; naming the category alone cannot resolve scope.
Useful evidence: Proposed indication/design and a definition-to-product comparison with source locators.
Have the cited section and its limitations been reviewed?
Record the applicable paragraph, conditions and cross-referenced limitations after specialist review. Keep a claimed exemption separate from actual establishment, listing and quality-system responsibilities.
Useful evidence: Dated classification/route rationale and the current provisions relied on, with unresolved conditions.
Separate historical research from a recent comparator
No selected decision falls in the complete-year window. Any named records shown are separately dated historical or current-year research. Obtain their actual indications and assess the current route before using a comparator; the absence of a recent record does not establish an exemption or a route.
Useful evidence: Proposed indication/design, the dated named record if available, and a current route/comparator research rationale.
Explain the technology and evidence differences
For each comparison, record the different materials, hardware, software functions and operating conditions. Link each difference to existing evidence or an unresolved evaluation task.
Useful evidence: A three-column matrix: comparator fact / your design fact / evidence or unresolved gap.
Prepare a scope-based schedule without a sparse timing benchmark
This recent cohort has fewer than 20 valid date pairs, so it supplies no median or percentile benchmark. Ask for a schedule based on actual preparation, evidence gaps, interactions and response assumptions; keep any historical decision context separately dated.
Useful evidence: Document/test readiness, unresolved route/evidence tasks and the assumptions behind the specialist’s proposed sequence.
Work packages and dependencies
Conditional: FDA 510(k) Submission Services — Review the supplied facts and evidence gaps before confirming the service scope.
Optional: Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes — Include only if your product, actor and delivery needs justify this additional scope. Confirm the responsibility and evidence handoff with the coordinating specialist.
Optional: FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment) — Include only if your product, actor and delivery needs justify this additional scope. Confirm the responsibility and evidence handoff with the coordinating specialist.
What needs to happen first
FDA 510(k) Submission Services → Find FDA US Agent Services | Compare & Get Quotes: Confirm the main product/actor scope and evidence gaps before deciding whether to commission this additional service.
FDA 510(k) Submission Services → FDA QMSR Transition & Inspection Readiness (ISO 13485 Alignment): Confirm the main product/actor scope and evidence gaps before deciding whether to commission this additional service.
Questions for providers
Which of the named QDL decisions are actually comparable to our proposed indications and technology, and which would you exclude?
Which evidence differences prevent us from using the comparison yet, and what deliverable resolves each one?
Does your schedule separate submission preparation, testing, FDA interactions and customer response time? What assumptions change it?
Sources and data dates
Read the official document in context. The audit details identify the precise locators and preserved versions used for this page.
