5 Things To Consider When Making A Change To An Existing Medical Device

by | Mar 1, 2021 | Medical Devices, Packaging, Quality, Quality Systems

In this constantly changing world, it is important that your products keep up with the latest technology available. With medical devices now being in the form of wearables, long gone are the days when patients needed to be hooked up to a system to monitor their health.

Continuously improving your product requires you to make changes, and some of these changes may require notifying the FDA in the form of supplemental reports, 510(k)s, etc.

When making a change to an existing device, below are the five categories that you must consider its impact on.1

  1. Product Label
  2. Change to technology/engineering.
  3. Software changes
  4. Material changes and
  5. Change made to improve the safety and efficacy of the device.

Impact on the product label could be in the form of changes to indications for use, changing it from a single-use device to a reusable device, change in the instructions for use based on post-market feedback, etc.

Changes to the technology may impact its mode of operation or require changes in the sterilization processes if applicable. Technology changes also raise additional questions about the safety and efficacy of the device and the changed product may no longer be substantially equivalent to its predicate if a 510(k) clearance was obtained.

Software changes are one of the easiest to make however, sometimes, a small change may make the unchanged sections of the software vulnerable to additional risks. Software bug fixes are common, however, the change must be evaluated diligently to assess whether it compromises the cybersecurity of the system or for its impact on clinical functionality such as its ability to make clinical decisions, etc.

Material changes have an impact on devices that directly or indirectly are in contact with body tissues or fluids. This in turn raises concerns on the biocompatibility of the product.

The impact of all these factors must be considered within the realm of risk assessment and this will allow for making an informed decision about whether notification to the regulatory authority is required. We have seen companies often miss this step and get into trouble during an audit for not notifying the FDA when a supplementary submission was required.

Need help in conducting regulatory change assessments? Call us today at +1 248-987-4497 or email us at info@emmainternational.com


1FDA (Oct 2017) Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device retrieved on 02/23/2021 from https://www.fda.gov/media/99812/download

Nikita Angane

Nikita Angane

Solutions Delivery Specialist - Ms. Angane is a Bioengineering graduate with experience in medical device commercialization, product development, quality system compliance and regulatory affairs. Her portfolio includes working on medical devices, combination products, and pharmaceuticals. As a Solutions Delivery Specialist at EMMA International, she offers her expertise to help our clients achieve an effective and sustainable quality system, and develop regulatory strategies for market access and compliance of new products in the US and international markets. Ms. Angane earned a Bachelor of Engineering in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Mumbai, India and an M.S. in Bioengineering from University of Illinois at Chicago.

More Resources

Pattern Recognition as a Quality Superpower

Pattern Recognition as a Quality Superpower

There are always new ways and reasons to apply pattern recognition to quality improvement. Better ensuring patient outcomes in health care facilities and improving accuracy for medical diagnoses are two such frontiers.
Record Control for a Regulated World

Record Control for a Regulated World

In a regulated industry, the prevailing posture of regulatory representatives, in my experience, has been “Show me proof.” In fact, the philosophy I’ve heard repeated by regulators is “If it wasn’t documented, it didn’t happen.”
EU MDR SSCP’s: The Importance of Readability

EU MDR SSCP’s: The Importance of Readability

Among many of the new requirements that EU MDR has introduced, the Summary of Safety and Clinical Performance (SSCP) is certainly one of the more confusing ones for many firms. SSCP’s are required for implantable and Class III devices under EU MDR and is intended to be a public document summarizing important safety and clinical performance information about the device.

Ready to learn more about working with us?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This