Skip to main content

Assignment and Request for Agency Component Designation for Premarket Applications (21CFR Part 3.1-3.10)

BayBiotech.NET
The main purpose of 21 CFR Part 3 is to support the efficiency of agency management and operations by providing guidelines for determining the agency component that will have primary jurisdiction for any drug, device, or biological product or providing the guidelines for the agency component determination where such jurisdiction is unclear. Out of 10 sections of the 21CFR Part 3 (Product Jurisdiction), the blog has the main emphasis on Sec 3.5 and 3.7 that relates to the guidance documents for agency designations as well as the requirements for request of agency designation in case the designation is unclear as per the guidance.
As per Sec 3.5, The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research have developed guidance documents clarifying product jurisdictional issues. The guidance documents entitled "Intercenter Agreement Between the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health;" "Intercenter Agreement Between the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research;" "Intercenter Agreement Between the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research." are available in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration. These guidance documents describe the responsibility for categories of products or specific products.
The sponsor of a premarket application filing for a combination or other product covered by these guidance documents may contact the designated agency component identified in the intercenter agreement before submitting an application of premarket review or to confirm coverage and to discuss the application process.
For a combination product not covered by the guidance document or for a product where the agency component with primary jurisdiction is unclear or in dispute, the sponsor of an application for premarket review should follow the procedures described in Sec 3.7 to request a designation of the agency component with primary jurisdiction before submitting the premarket application.

For filing the designation request, an original and two copies of the request for designation are required with a page limit of 15 pages, including attachments, and must have the detailed identity of the sponsor and the product. If any component of the product has already received the premarket approval the Identification of such a component must be included in the designation request letter.
In the request for designation, the sponsor's are encouraged to provide with the recommendation as to which agency should have primary jurisdiction based on the mode of action that provides the most important therapeutic action of the combination product. If the sponsor is unable to determine, then the recommendation must be based on the assignment algorithm provided in section 3.4(b).
For further details about the Product Jurisdiction follow the link. Rest will follow….

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Harmonization by Doing (HBD): Japan & U.S. Collaboration

BayBiotech.NET HBD is an international cooperative effort by Japan and US for regulatory convergence for Medical Devices. The efforts are focused on to develop global clinical trials and address regulatory barriers for timely device approvals. To address the needs for additional evaluation, the HBD initiative is a pilot project launched jointly by FDA and MHLW-PMDA for the premarket review of device cardiovascular technology. Instead of taking a theoretical approach to harmonization, HBD is focused on Proof of concept by utilizing parallel development, application submissions and review of actual medical device projects. HBD Study intends to collect and analyze regulatory submission data from multiple applications in the U.S. and Japan. The purpose of the study is to further understand differences that may exist with format and content, to define best practices and to improve globally harmonized processes. To read more about the HBD program, follow the link: http://www.fda.gov/M...
Post a Comment
Read more

Amendments for High Risk Device Type Regulatory Pathway

BayBiotech.NET Government Accounting Office (“GAO”) has issued a long-awaited report evaluating the use of the 510(k) process by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA” or the “Agency”) in the January of 2009. Report mainly focused on Preamendment class III devices. Although most high-risk class III medical devices are subject to the demanding premarket approval (“PMA”) process, preamendment class III devices may be cleared through the 510(k) pathway until FDA issues regulations requiring a PMA. Under the Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, FDA was required either to reclassify preamendment class III devices into class I or II, or (2) issue regulations requiring PMA approval for the devices, GAO noted that 20 preamendment class III device types have not yet been addressed by the Agency. GAO has urged FDA to take required steps to address the remaining class III devices that continue to be eligible for 510(k) review. As a result of the report, FDA has committed to address al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Risk Based Clinical Monitoring

BayBiotech.NET FDA's recommendation of Risk Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials , as published in their Draft Guidance in August 2011. For the first time, FDA provided guidance on monitoring of clinical investigations in 1988 which was recently withdrawn, stated that the “most effective way” to monitor an investigation was to “maintain personal contact between the monitor and the investigator throughout the clinical investigation.” At the time the guidance was issued, sponsors had only limited ways to effect meaningful communication with investigators other than through on-site visits.   This guidance recommends an assessment by the sponsor for the need of 100% on-site monitoring. Such an assessment may be based on the complexity of the study protocol and not be generally applicable to all trial types. It explains the importance of remote monitoring facilitated by the use of electronic data capture system (EDC) and also emphasizes the need of the identifying crit...
1 comment
Read more