November 27, 2018
Authored and Edited by Elliott T. LaParne; M. Andrew Holtman, Ph.D.
On September 25, 2018, FDA issued Guidance on benefit-risk factors to consider when determining substantial equivalence (SE) in premarket notifications (510(k)) with different technological characteristics.
The purpose of this Guidance is to provide direction to 510(k) submitters on what FDA considers during a safety and effectiveness analysis. 510(k) submitters must demonstrate a new device has SE to a predicate device in order to gain new device clearance. A submitter establishes SE by first demonstrating to FDA that the new device has the “same intended use” as the predicate device. If FDA subsequently finds the devices have the same technological characteristics, the new device is deemed to have SE with the predicate device. Alternatively, the submitter can demonstrate to FDA that the devices have different technological characteristics, but these differences do not raise dissimilar questions as to the safety and effectiveness of the new device.
A safety and effectiveness analysis compares the benefit-risk profiles of the predicate device to the new device. A benefit-risk assessment should be conducted in two scenarios: (1) the new device increases risk and has equivalent or increased benefit compared to the predicate; or (2) the new device decreases or has equivalent risk and has decreased benefit compared to the predicate. FDA takes numerous factors into consideration to determine the aggregate benefits and aggregate risks of the device and the predicate.
Examples of device benefits include the ability to predict future disease onset and increase in efficiency or examination procedures. The benefit magnitude and the probability of a patient experiencing the benefit are considered. Examples of common device risks are adverse device performance and patient intolerability. FDA considers the severity, number, probability, and duration of harmful events when evaluating device risk.
FDA acknowledges variability among benefits and risks. FDA takes further factors into account to combat these discrepancies: the characterization of the disease, the innovation of the technology, and the risk mitigation caused by the new device and predicate. If the aggregated benefits outweigh the aggregated risks, FDA will likely grant SE. In contrast, FDA will likely not grant SE if the risks outweigh the benefits.
Readers are encouraged to read the Guidance, also available on FDA’s website.
Copyright © 2018 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Webinar
May 9, 2024
Webinar
Workshop
Life Sciences Workshop: Updates and Key Trends in Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology IP Law
May 2, 2024
Cambridge
At the PTAB Blog
USPTO Releases Notice of Proposed Rule Making Codifying Several Precedential Case Factors
April 25, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.