FREE ON-DEMAND WEBINAR
December 6, 2018

The 510(k) and Substantial Equivalence: Why Do So Many Get It Wrong?

The premarket notification, a.k.a. the 510(k), is the most common pathway used to bring new medical devices to market in the US.

Yet despite FDA issuing multiple guidance’s since the 510(k) was created in 1976, 75% of 510(k)’s are rejected (i.e., via “additional information” requests) and of those that are rejected, nearly 85% are rejected specifically because of substantial equivalence or the lack thereof!

Simply put: no 510(k) should ever be rejected – and certainly not due to substantial equivalence – this is an amateur mistake! (see MDUFA stats).

Such delays and rejections result in obvious increases in time and cost to market – many of which could be minimized or avoided!

One area receiving regulatory scrutiny is the substantial equivalence (SE) argument. Simply put without a strong substantial equivalence argument, your 510(k) submission will not be successful. And if FDA says your device is not substantially equivalent (NSE), does it mean your device is in fact NSE?

Not necessarily! But what does SE really mean
and how do I show it? How do I use not just what the regulation says but also what it does not say to my advantage?

Using the case study approach, these questions and others will be presented in an interactive fashion.