Company insight
The consultant, the FDA and you
mdi Consultants guides on how to make the best consultant choice, which is pivotal for the success and financial stability of any medical device manufacturing business.
D
ealing with the FDA is not easy, especially for smaller companies who may not have experienced inhouse staff. Understanding what the FDA really means by time frames and due dates, knowing how to address regulatory concerns and preparing a response to a 483 or a warning letter requires an in-depth knowledge of regulations as well as the real life experience of dealing with the agency. If an organisation cannot convince the FDA on what to expect and if they cannot meet the required compliance, the FDA will escalate their enforcement. In that case, the situation can quickly go from bad to worse; which is where consultants can bring the critical skill of negotiating on a client’s benefit.
Knowing which consultant to select can make the difference with the FDA. Just because a consultant understands the QSR/cGMP (21CFR820) does not mean they are experts in evaluating the FDA-483 observations and identifying appropriate corrective actions. Simply telling the FDA that observations will be addressed is not adequate, it wants to see that companies understand what their deficiency is, how to correct it and assure that corrective action is effectively implemented. A credible response to FDA must be based on precisely defined and implemented corrective actions, with supporting evidence collected and submitted to the agency.
Given the critical role that an outside consultant plays in their clients’ compliance, it is expected that a company does its due diligence and retains a consultant who has the expertise in dealing with FDA. The FDA QSR requires that consultants are qualified, just as all other vendors are supposed to be. There are, in the FDA’s opinion, three types of consultants: ■The regulatory consultants who specialise in the 5l0(k) and PMA issues,
■Quality consultants who are adept at GMP auditing, writing and revising procedures,
■Technical consultants who know how to find problems and fix them.
■An ideal consultant has all three of the above qualifications.
While the FDA cannot recommend or endorse a particular consultant, its guide on selecting a consultant offers criteria to consider: ■How long has the consultant worked with the device (not drug GMP) regulations?
■Is their knowledge current? ■How does the consultant know CDRH’s current policies and interpretations are for device GMPs?
■Does the consultant sponsor or participate in training courses?
■Are they frequently asked to give presentations at FDA or industry sponsored seminars? What have been the reactions to these presentations?
■The consultant must be able to communicate problems and provide solutions in a clear, concise manner and in such a way that the company knows how to perform corrections the “right” way the first time.
■Has the consultant been deposed or testified as an expert witness either for the FDA or for industry?
■Obtain a list of the consultant’s clients over the last several years and check these references.
■What types of certifications does the consultant have? Are their certifications recognised by professional societies?
While these recommendations are logical, the need for such verifications has been accelerated by the red tape and regulatory environment that inflated the increased use of consultants.
When is a consultant needed is the most important question. An outside opinion on a difficult problem or an independent internal audit may be the first step to preventing a situation from getting out of hand.
Medical Device Developments /
www.nsmedicaldevices.com
Why is a consultant needed. If a company cannot realise a consultant is required in certain situations, it could cost more in the long run.
Who to hire is tantamount, both to assure the project is done correctly and that money is well spent. Consultants’ fees are usually related to their level of experience and the size of their support organisation. There are reasons why people prefer the Hyatt to a Motel 6. The same theory applies to any type of service and especially consultants. Unfortunately, higher fees do not always assure quality work or that the required information is available.
A productive partnership As the FDA recommends, checking references is important. How long has the consultant worked for the company and doing what kind of work? Is the consultant on a retainer agreement or would the company rehire them as needs require? Of course, consultants will tend to supply only the names of satisfied customers, but a truer picture of capabilities and qualifications emerges from references that cover several areas of consultation. Good rapport is paramount to success. Both the business and the consultant must understand what is expected for the cost. There is no reason a consultant should not be able to estimate the cost of a project. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t true. If a consultant promises anything overreaching regarding the FDA – for example, they could get a 510(k) reviewed in three months – it would be recommended to start looking elsewhere. The need for consultants does not appear to diminish any time soon. But the relationship need not be a one-sided affair to regret. A long-lasting relationship with a good consultant can be beneficial for both parties. ●
Alan@mdiconsultants.com 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146
