Head of Regulatory Affairs
Regulatory strategy development, submission management, and global market access for medical device organizations.
Table of Contents
- Regulatory Strategy Workflow
- FDA Submission Workflow
- EU MDR Submission Workflow
- Global Market Access Workflow
- Regulatory Intelligence Workflow
- Decision Frameworks
- Tools and References
Regulatory Strategy Workflow
Develop regulatory strategy aligned with business objectives and product characteristics.
Workflow: New Product Regulatory Strategy
- Gather product information:
- Intended use and indications
- Device classification (risk level)
- Technology platform
- Target markets and timeline
- Identify applicable regulations per target market:
- FDA (US): 21 CFR Part 820, 510(k)/PMA/De Novo
- EU: MDR 2017/745, Notified Body requirements
- Other markets: Health Canada, PMDA, NMPA, TGA
- Determine optimal regulatory pathway:
- Compare submission types (510(k) vs De Novo vs PMA)
- Assess predicate device availability
- Evaluate clinical evidence requirements
- Develop regulatory timeline with milestones
- Estimate resource requirements and budget
- Identify regulatory risks and mitigation strategies
- Obtain stakeholder alignment and approval
- Validation: Strategy document approved; timeline accepted; resources allocated
Regulatory Pathway Selection Matrix
| Factor | 510(k) | De Novo | PMA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Predicate Available | Yes | No | N/A |
| Risk Level | Low-Moderate | Low-Moderate | High |
| Clinical Data | Usually not required | May be required | Required |
| Review Time | 90 days (MDUFA) | 150 days | 180 days |
| User Fee | ~$22K (2024) | ~$135K | ~$440K |
| Best For | Me-too devices | Novel low-risk | High-risk, novel |
Regulatory Strategy Document Template
REGULATORY STRATEGY
Product: [Name] Version: [X.X] Date: [Date]
1. PRODUCT OVERVIEW
Intended use: [One-sentence statement of intended patient population, body site, and clinical purpose]
Device classification: [Class I / II / III]
Technology: [Brief description, e.g., "AI-powered wound-imaging software, SaMD"]
2. TARGET MARKETS & TIMELINE
| Market | Pathway | Priority | Target Date |
|--------|----------------|----------|-------------|
| USA | 510(k) / PMA | 1 | Q1 20XX |
| EU | Class [X] MDR | 2 | Q2 20XX |
3. REGULATORY PATHWAY RATIONALE
FDA: [510(k) / De Novo / PMA] — Predicate: [K-number or "none"]
EU: Class [X] via [Annex IX / X / XI] — NB: [Name or TBD]
Rationale: [2–3 sentences on key factors driving pathway choice]
4. CLINICAL EVIDENCE STRATEGY
Requirements: [Summarize what each market needs, e.g., "510(k): bench + usability; EU Class IIb: PMCF study"]
Approach: [Literature review / Prospective study / Combination]
5. RISKS AND MITIGATION
| Risk | Prob | Impact | Mitigation |
|------------------------------|------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| Predicate delisted by FDA | Low | High | Identify secondary predicate now |
| NB audit backlog | Med | Med | Engage NB 6 months before target |
6. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Budget: $[Amount] Personnel: [FTEs] External: [Consultants / CRO]
FDA Submission Workflow
Prepare and submit FDA regulatory applications.
Workflow: 510(k) Submission
- Confirm 510(k) pathway suitability:
- Predicate device identified (note K-number, e.g., K213456)
- Substantial equivalence (SE) argument supportable on intended use and technological characteristics
- No new intended use or technology concerns triggering De Novo
- Schedule and conduct Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) meeting if needed (see Pre-Sub Decision)
- Compile submission package checklist:
- Cover letter with device name, product code, and predicate K-number
- Section 1: Administrative information (applicant, contact, 510(k) type)
- Section 2: Device description — include photos, dimensions, materials list
- Section 3: Intended use and indications for use
- Section 4: Substantial equivalence comparison table (see example below)
- Section 5: Performance testing — protocols, standards cited, pass/fail results
- Section 6: Biocompatibility summary (ISO 10993-1 risk assessment, if patient contact)
- Section 7: Software documentation (IEC 62304 level, cybersecurity per FDA guidance, if applicable)
- Section 8: Labeling — final draft IFU, device label
- Section 9: Summary and conclusion
- Conduct internal review and quality check against FDA RTA checklist
- Prepare eCopy per FDA format requirements (PDF bookmarked, eCopy cover page)
- Submit via FDA ESG portal with user fee payment
- Monitor MDUFA clock and respond to AI/RTA requests within deadlines
- Validation: Submission accepted; MDUFA date received; tracking system updated
Substantial Equivalence Comparison Example
| Characteristic | Predicate (K213456) | Subject Device | Same? | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intended use | Wound measurement | Wound measurement | ✓ | Identical |
| Technology | 2D camera | 2D + AI analysis | ✗ | New TC; address below |
| Energy type | Non-energized | Non-energized | ✓ | |
| Patient contact | No | No | ✓ | |
| SE conclusion | New TC does not raise new safety/effectiveness questions; bench data demonstrates equivalent accuracy (±2mm vs ±3mm predicate) |
Workflow: PMA Submission
- Confirm PMA pathway:
- Class III device or no suitable predicate
- Clinical data strategy defined
- Complete IDE clinical study if required:
- IDE approval
- Clinical protocol execution
- Study report completion
- Conduct Pre-Submission meeting
- Compile PMA submission checklist:
- Volume I: Administrative, device description, manufacturing
- Volume II: Nonclinical studies (bench, animal, biocompatibility)
- Volume III: Clinical studies (IDE protocol, data, statistical analysis)
- Volume IV: Labeling
- Volume V: Manufacturing information, sterilization
- Submit original PMA application
- Address FDA questions and deficiencies
- Prepare for FDA facility inspection
- Validation: PMA approved; approval letter received; post-approval requirements documented
FDA Submission Timeline
| Milestone | 510(k) | De Novo | PMA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Sub Meeting | Day -90 | Day -90 | Day -120 |
| Submission | Day 0 | Day 0 | Day 0 |
| RTA Review | Day 15 | Day 15 | Day 45 |
| Substantive Review | Days 15–90 | Days 15–150 | Days 45–180 |
| Decision | Day 90 | Day 150 | Day 180 |
Common FDA Deficiencies and Prevention
| Category | Common Issues | Prevention |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial Equivalence | Weak predicate comparison; no performance data | Build SE table with data column; cite recognized standards |
| Performance Testing | Incomplete protocols; missing worst-case rationale | Follow FDA-recognized standards; document worst-case justification |
| Biocompatibility | Missing endpoints; no ISO 10993-1 risk assessment | Complete ISO 10993-1 matrix before testing |
| Software | Inadequate hazard analysis; no cybersecurity bill of materials | IEC 62304 compliance + FDA cybersecurity guidance checklist |
| Labeling | Inconsistent claims vs. IFU; missing symbols standard | Cross-check label against IFU; cite ISO 15223-1 for symbols |
See: references/fda-submission-guide.md
EU MDR Submission Workflow
Achieve CE marking