A device can be registered for the De Novo pathway if there is evidence of the safety and effectiveness of the device and there is not a previously legally marketed predicate device1. When determining if your device can go through the De Novo process there are two pathways available to determine the device classification.

The device classification is determined through a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) risk-based evaluation for the device. The two-evaluation classification utilized are as follows:

  • Option 1: After receiving a high-level not substantially equivalent (NSE) determination in response to a 510(k) submission.
  • Option 2: Upon the requester’s determination that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence1.

For option one there is no predicate device, a new intended use, or different technological characteristics than any marketed device which raised a question about the device’s safety and effectiveness. If the device falls into option two, a 510K was not submitted for the device, or a high-level substantially equivalent determination was not received. It is recommended by the FDA guidance to submit a pre-submission for the device to ensure the appropriate pathway is followed.

When submitting a De Novo request, ensure the aspects needed for acceptance of the request are provided. The FDA can deny any submission that does not include all the requirements such as a cover sheet, administrative information, device description and classification information, and supporting data.

Ensure your FDA De Novo Submission method includes a provided signed receipt of submission and or delivery. After a device is approved and classified through the De Novo Pathway it can be marketed and used as a predicate for future premarket submissions. If your company needs assistance with a De Novo submission or any other medical device submission type, EMMA International is here to help. Contact us by phone at 248-987-4497 or by email at info@emmainternational.com.

1FDA (January 2022) De Novo Classification Request, retrieved on June 26, 2022, from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/premarket-submissions-selecting-and-preparing-correct-submission/de-novo-classification-request#What_is_a_De_Novo_Classification_Request_

Sarah Koehler

Sarah Koehler

Sarah is a Quality Engineer at EMMA International. She has experience in quality assurance, change management, laboratory controls, and process/equipment validation within the pharmaceutical and medical device industry. Sarah has earned a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Western Michigan University.

More Resources

FDA’s Refusal to Accept Process

FDA’s Refusal to Accept Process

Before the submission of a 510(k) premarket notification, the purpose of which is to notify the FDA of the manufacturer’s intent to market a medical device,[i] there is a provision for acceptance review. This review serves as a method to assess whether a submission is administratively complete and includes all necessary information for FDA to determine substantial equivalence under section 513(i) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act (21 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 360c(i)). To establish substantial equivalence under this provision, FDA must find the same intended use as the predicate device and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or appropriate clinical and scientific data necessary to establish that the device is safe and effective as the predicate device. If the Authority is unable to determine substantial equivalence due to insufficient information, it may request for additional information to make that determination. Therefore, as a part of the acceptance review, the FDA staff follows the acceptance checklist[ii] to ensure that the application is administratively complete. These administrative elements are identified as RTA items and are required to be presented. The purpose of conducting the acceptance review is for the Lead Reviewer to determine whether the 510(k) submission meets the minimum threshold of acceptability and should be accepted for substantive review.[iii]
Empowering Your Workforce through Kaizen

Empowering Your Workforce through Kaizen

Last week, I touched on the idea of involving and empowering all employees in the workplace through the corrective and preventive actions process by fostering taking initiative and a problem-solving (refer to blogpost ‘The Art of Addressing Non-Conformances in Operations’). To expand on this concept a bit further, we’re going to be looking at Kaizen–a continuous improvement strategy in which employees at all levels are also empowered to solve problems towards big gains.
FDA’s draft guidelines on Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs)

FDA’s draft guidelines on Remote Regulatory Assessments (RRAs)

The pandemic has been a challenging time for all industries including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA had to alter the manner in which it conducted its operations. One set of tools adopted by the FDA in response to COVID-19 was the remote regulatory assessment (RRAs).

Ready to learn more about working with us?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This