2️Medical Software Regulation (FDA and IMDRF)
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 21 Part 820
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 21 Part 820, commonly known as 21 CFR 820 or the Quality System Regulation (QSR), outlines the requirements for the establishment and maintenance of a quality management system for medical device manufacturers in the United States. It covers various aspects, including:
Quality System Requirements: Manufacturers must establish and maintain a comprehensive quality system to ensure their medical devices consistently meet safety and effectiveness standards.
Management Responsibility: Management should demonstrate commitment to quality, provide adequate resources, and define organizational roles and responsibilities.
Design Controls: Procedures must be in place to manage the design and development process of medical devices, ensuring they meet specified requirements and are safe for their intended use.
Document Controls: Proper documentation of procedures, specifications, and records related to manufacturing processes and devices is required to ensure accuracy and traceability.
Corrective and Preventive Actions: Processes should be established to identify, investigate, and address quality issues, implementing corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
Handling, Storage, Distribution, and Installation: Proper protocols for handling, storing, distributing, and installing devices to maintain their quality and integrity.
Quality Audits: Conducting regular internal audits to assess compliance with quality system requirements and identify areas for improvement.
Records: Maintaining records of all activities and procedures related to the manufacturing and quality of medical devices.
Overall, CFR 820 aims to ensure that medical device manufacturers follow consistent and stringent quality standards throughout the lifecycle of their products to ensure patient safety and product effectiveness.
Verification and Validation (V&V)
V&V in the context of medical devices stands for "Verification and Validation," which are critical components of the product development lifecycle aimed at ensuring the safety, effectiveness, and compliance of medical devices with regulatory standards.
Verification involves confirming that the design outputs of each phase of the device development meet the specified design inputs. It ensures that the device is being built correctly, according to the defined specifications, standards, and requirements. Verification checks that the product is consistent with its intended design. This might involve testing components, software, or materials to confirm they meet the specified criteria.
Validation is the process of evaluating and ensuring that the final product meets the user needs and intended use. It confirms that the device functions as expected in its intended environment and performs according to user expectations. Validation demonstrates that the device is fit for its intended purpose and often involves testing the device in real or simulated environments to mimic actual usage conditions.
Both verification and validation are crucial in the development of medical devices to ensure that they are not only designed correctly but also fulfill their intended function effectively and safely in real-world scenarios. These processes help in minimizing risks associated with device use and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements before the product reaches the market or is used in clinical settings.
European Union's Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745
The European Union's Medical Device Regulation (MDR) is officially documented as Regulation (EU) 2017/745. This regulation replaces the previous Medical Device Directive (MDD) and the Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive (AIMDD).
The MDR 2017/745 came into effect to strengthen and harmonize the regulatory framework for medical devices in the European Union. It introduces several significant changes:
Scope and Definitions: The MDR broadens the scope of products covered, including certain aesthetic devices and products without an intended medical purpose.
Classification: It establishes more stringent classification rules for devices, particularly with higher-risk classifications, and imposes stricter conformity assessment procedures.
Clinical Evidence and Evaluation: Manufacturers must provide more extensive clinical data and undergo rigorous assessment processes, especially for higher-risk devices. The regulation emphasizes continuous post-market surveillance and clinical follow-up.
Unique Device Identification (UDI): Implementing a UDI system for tracking and traceability of medical devices throughout their lifecycle, enhancing transparency and safety.
Eudamed Database: Introduction of a centralized European database (Eudamed) for medical devices to facilitate market surveillance, transparency, and information exchange among stakeholders.
Notified Bodies and Compliance: Strengthened requirements for Notified Bodies (independent third-party organizations responsible for assessing conformity) and increased scrutiny of their operations to ensure consistency and quality in assessments.
Transparency and Traceability: Improved transparency and traceability in the supply chain, ensuring the availability of information to competent authorities, healthcare professionals, and patients.
The MDR aims to enhance patient safety, improve the quality and reliability of medical devices available in the EU market, and ensure a more consistent regulatory approach across member states. Compliance with MDR requirements is crucial for manufacturers, importers, distributors, and other entities involved in bringing medical devices to the EU market.
General Principles of Software Validation
The FDA's general principles of software validation emphasize ensuring the reliability, safety, and effectiveness of software used in medical devices. Here's a concise summary of these principles:
Validation Planning: Establish a comprehensive plan outlining the validation process, including objectives, methodologies, acceptance criteria, and responsibilities.
Requirements Specification: Clearly define and document software requirements, functionalities, and intended use, ensuring they align with user needs and regulatory standards.
Risk Management: Identify and mitigate potential risks associated with the software, incorporating risk management practices throughout the validation process.
Verification and Testing: Conduct thorough verification activities, including testing at various stages of development, to confirm that the software meets specified requirements and functions correctly.
Traceability: Maintain traceability between requirements, design, and testing phases to ensure that each aspect is aligned and validated accordingly.
Configuration Management: Implement robust configuration management practices to control changes made to the software and maintain its integrity throughout the development lifecycle.
Validation Documentation: Generate comprehensive documentation, including protocols, reports, and records of validation activities and results, to demonstrate compliance with regulatory standards.
Quality Assurance: Ensure that appropriate quality assurance practices are in place to monitor and improve the software development process continually.
Validation of Off-The-Shelf Software: Assess and validate any off-the-shelf software used in the development of medical devices to ensure it meets specified requirements and functions reliably within the device.
Post-Market Monitoring: Establish procedures for post-market surveillance and monitoring to identify and address any issues that may arise after the software is in use.
These principles form the foundation for validating software used in medical devices, aiming to guarantee its reliability, safety, and effectiveness throughout its lifecycle and in compliance with FDA regulations.
International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) SaMD
The International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) SaMD (Software as a Medical Device) refers to guidelines and principles established by the IMDRF, a global organization of medical device regulators. SaMD specifically focuses on software intended for medical purposes, independent of the hardware on which it runs.
The SaMD guidance provides a framework for the regulation and oversight of software that functions as a medical device. Its key points include:
Definition and Classification: Defining what constitutes SaMD and offering guidance on its classification based on risk and intended use.
Quality Management: Outlining principles for SaMD development, including risk management, design and development controls, and post-market surveillance.
Clinical Evaluation and Performance: Providing guidance on demonstrating clinical evidence and performance validation specific to software functioning as a medical device.
Labeling and Documentation: Offering recommendations on labeling requirements and documentation necessary for regulatory compliance.
Global Harmonization: Aiming to harmonize regulatory approaches across different jurisdictions, encouraging consistency in how SaMD is regulated internationally.
The SaMD guidance aims to promote patient safety, innovation, and global harmonization in regulating software that serves medical purposes, recognizing the unique challenges and rapid evolution in the field of medical software.
Categorization of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD)
The categorization of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) into Categories 1, 2, and 3 helps to differentiate and assess the potential risks associated with the software in relation to its intended medical use. These categories are outlined in the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) guidance for SaMD.
Category 1 SaMD: This category includes low-risk software intended for activities that don't directly impact patient health or safety. These applications might involve administrative tasks, such as managing patient records or general wellness apps that don't provide critical medical information.
Category 2 SaMD: Software in this category carries a moderate level of risk and has a more direct impact on patient health, but potential harm is not immediate or severe. Examples might include software providing information for supporting clinical management decisions but not for primary diagnosis or treatment.
Category 3 SaMD: This category encompasses high-risk software that directly influences patient health or safety and is critical for medical decision-making or treatment. These applications might involve software used for primary diagnosis, treatment planning, or monitoring of vital parameters, where incorrect or inadequate functioning could pose significant risks to patients.
These categories aid regulators and developers in understanding the level of scrutiny, evidence, and regulatory requirements needed for the development, assessment, and post-market monitoring of different types of medical software. The categorization helps ensure appropriate regulatory oversight based on the potential risk to patients associated with the use of the SaMD.
FDA 510(k) vs De Novo
The FDA 510(k) process and the De Novo process are pathways used by medical device manufacturers to obtain FDA clearance for marketing their devices in the United States, but they differ significantly in their intended use and the types of devices they apply to.
FDA 510(k) Process:
Intended Use: The 510(k) process is used for devices that are deemed substantially equivalent to an existing legally marketed device, known as a predicate device. The new device must demonstrate that it is as safe and effective as the predicate device and doesn’t raise new questions of safety and performance.
Submission: Manufacturers submit a 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA, comparing their device to one or more predicate devices. If the FDA finds the comparison satisfactory, clearance is granted, allowing the device to be marketed.
Timing: The 510(k) process typically involves a review period that can vary in duration, depending on the complexity of the device and the completeness of the submission.
De Novo Process:
Intended Use: The De Novo process is for novel devices that do not have a predicate device and do not fit the criteria for automatic classification into a higher-risk category.
Submission: Manufacturers submit a De Novo classification request to the FDA, providing evidence to demonstrate the device's safety and effectiveness. If the FDA grants the De Novo request, the device establishes a new classification, creating a pathway for similar devices in the future.
Timing: The De Novo process may involve a more extensive review and evaluation by the FDA due to the unique nature of the device, potentially leading to a longer review period compared to the 510(k) process.
In essence, the 510(k) process relies on the comparison of the new device to an existing one, while the De Novo process is for novel devices that do not have a predicate and require a unique pathway for market clearance. The De Novo process allows the FDA to create a new classification for devices that have no equivalent existing device.
AI/ML Methods
The FDA typically assesses medical software that utilizes Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) methods through its premarket review pathways, which could include the following:
Traditional 510(k) Pathway with AI/ML Modifications: Some AI/ML-based software might undergo review through the traditional 510(k) pathway if the modifications or updates to the software are deemed minor and don’t significantly alter its intended use, safety, or efficacy. This pathway requires demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices.
Special 510(k) Pathway: If the modifications involving AI/ML methods represent technological advancements to improve safety or effectiveness without altering the device's fundamental performance characteristics, a special 510(k) pathway might be used.
De Novo Classification Pathway: For AI/ML-based software that doesn’t have a predicate and doesn’t fit the criteria for automatic classification, manufacturers might seek FDA clearance through the De Novo pathway. This pathway allows for the establishment of a new classification for novel devices.
Expedited Review Programs: In cases where AI/ML-based software offers significant benefits for patients and represents breakthrough technologies, the FDA might consider expedited review programs like the Breakthrough Devices Program, which provides priority review and guidance through the regulatory process.
Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) Pathway: The FDA recognizes SaMD as a distinct category, and if the AI/ML software is intended as a standalone medical device without being part of a hardware device, it might undergo evaluation following the SaMD regulatory principles and the associated IMDRF guidelines.
The specific pathway used for review and clearance of AI/ML-based medical software depends on various factors such as the intended use, risk profile, novelty, and impact on patient safety and efficacy. The FDA evaluates these technologies with a focus on patient safety, effectiveness, and adherence to regulatory standards while considering the unique aspects of AI/ML applications in healthcare.
FDA General Principles of Software Validation
FDA Quality System Regulation
IMDRF SaMD Guidance Documents
FDA Draft Guidance on AI/ML
Last updated
