So your organization has received a warning letter from FDA – now what? For starters, the agency has quickly upped the ante in regards to taking the next steps in ensuring your organization clearly understands that a continued state of non-compliance is not acceptable. Warning letters are life-changing events for device manufacturers; however, they are recoverable. Dr. D recommends getting legal counsel and industry experts involved when responding to a warning letter, reviewing subsequent correspondence…
There are two options in regards to Form 483s: in option One, an organization can be proactive, accept the Form 483, and treat is as an opportunity for pursuing continuous improvement, while driving compliance to the QSR. In option Two, an organization can ignore the Form 483, and in doing so, be prepared to deal with the proverbial opening of the can of “FDA worms” and the subsequent warning letter that will be issued.
This week’s Devine Guidance on 21 CFR, Part 820 – Subpart O (Statistical Techniques) is the proverbial “Final Act” in regards to the QSR. There is a plethora of data, standards, and websites that can provide useful information needed to create robust procedure(s) for establishing effective statistical control and sampling plans. Establishing robust statistical procedures will mitigate the potential receipt of a Form 483.
On July 19 and 20, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration held a public meeting on regulatory oversight of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). This is considered a major step in an ongoing debate on how best to handle two different, but often overlapping, sets of diagnostic tools in a manner that best serves patient safety and public health, while recognizing the realities of clinical practice and medical product development.
Stakeholder interest was intense. The original meeting space reached capacity and registration closed within two days, prompting FDA to shift the conference to a larger venue. Nearly 650 people attended, while 650 more watched via webcast. FDA’s sense of urgency on the matter was further suggested by the June 10 issuance of “it has come to our attention” letters to six genetic testing companies, followed by another 14 on the opening day of the conference itself.
What are the issues? Why the concern? What does it all mean, and where might the Agency go?