Skip to main content

FDA finalizes regulation for certain software, hardware used with medical devices

Rule provides more predictable path to market

Today, the FDA announced a final rule that provides a less-burdensome path to market for certain hardware and software products used with medical devices. The rule classifies these products, known as Medical Device Data Systems or MDDS, as Class I or low-risk devices, making them exempt from premarket review but still subject to quality standards.

“This rule is a common-sense regulatory approach that provides clarity and predictability for manufacturers of these data systems,” said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “This shows our flexibility in applying regulations for medical device data systems that are not overly burdensome for manufacturers but continue to assure that data stored, transferred or displayed on these systems remain reliable.”

Medical Device Data Systems are off-the-shelf or custom hardware or software products used alone or in combination that display unaltered medical device data, or transfer, store or convert medical device data for future use, in accordance with a preset specification.

Examples of MDDS products include: devices that collect and store data from a glucose meter for future use or that transfer lab results to be displayed at a nursing station for future use.

Prior to this rule, first proposed in 2008, FDA considered these devices to be either Class III (or high-risk) devices requiring premarket approval or accessories to an existing medical device.

By down-classifying these devices into Class I, the FDA is exempting all manufacturers of MDDS from premarket notification and applying the level of regulation reserved for low risk devices. Moreover, these manufacturers must comply with all Class I requirements including registering with the FDA, listing their MDDS products, reporting adverse events and complying with FDA’s Quality Systems regulation, a basic system of manufacturing and design controls that, among other things, will ensure manufacturers test their products before marketing them.

The rule also levels the playing field for medical device manufacturers. Information technology companies that design, install or market these systems, and hospitals that develop them in their facilities, must follow Class I requirements as well.

The Medical Device Data Systems rule will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow and is available for advanced viewing today.

For more information:
Medical Device Data Systems

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...