Hi Folks,
Our company is in the process of applying for the MDL for our class IV medical device, and I'm grappling with the concept of "A Medical Device Family".
We're aiming to include more than 6 products under the same preferred name code (PNC) in one submission.
According to the guideline stating, "As a principle, materials, labelling, manufacturing processes, design, and performance specifications cannot be significantly different between the members of the family", therefore, when there is no significant difference, devices can be included into one family.
We will demonstrate in our submission that all 6 products share the same manufacturing process in the same facility of the same QM system, have the same general intended use and principles of operation, and with differences, but very similar in design, materials, and performance characteristics. We will also demonstrate that such differences don't affect the safety or effectiveness of the medical devices.
I'm curious about the next steps if Health Canada rejects this approach and whether there is any possibility of a refund in such a situation.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated, and any suggestions will be highly valued.
B&R
Emma
Our company is in the process of applying for the MDL for our class IV medical device, and I'm grappling with the concept of "A Medical Device Family".
We're aiming to include more than 6 products under the same preferred name code (PNC) in one submission.
According to the guideline stating, "As a principle, materials, labelling, manufacturing processes, design, and performance specifications cannot be significantly different between the members of the family", therefore, when there is no significant difference, devices can be included into one family.
We will demonstrate in our submission that all 6 products share the same manufacturing process in the same facility of the same QM system, have the same general intended use and principles of operation, and with differences, but very similar in design, materials, and performance characteristics. We will also demonstrate that such differences don't affect the safety or effectiveness of the medical devices.
I'm curious about the next steps if Health Canada rejects this approach and whether there is any possibility of a refund in such a situation.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated, and any suggestions will be highly valued.
B&R
Emma