Skip to main content

Medical Device Regulation in India

BayBiotech.NET

At present, the Indian market for medical devices is largely unregulated and Medical devices can freely be imported into India. Solely, the key decision maker is either the doctor, or a private or government hospital that evaluates the device and imports it to India.

Although the FDA approved products are preferred because of their better
quality and performance, but since India is a price sensitive market, low priced, poor quality medical devices find a bigger and more favored market.

To ensure the quality of healthcare service and keeping the globalization of the clinical trials in mind, the Government of India is in the process of developing regulations for medical devices. A set of guidelines are expected to evolve that would bring a select group of medical devices under the regulatory framework.

In India, the authority regulating medical devices will be the Central Drug Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in the Ministry of Health. The CDSCO is the authority, which lays down rules, standards and approves import and manufacturing of drugs, diagnostics, devices, and cosmetics. Currently, CDSCO’s functions are to establish the standards and regulations for drugs, blood and blood products, intravenous fluids, and vaccines. With added responsibility of regulating the medical devices industry, CDSCO will be the approving authority for import, manufacture and sale of medical devices in India.
To read more on the topic follow the link: http://www.cdsco.nic.in

Reference:

1. http://www.trade.gov/td/health/india_med_registration05.pdf

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