What is Substantial Equivalence
A 510(k) requires demonstration of substantial equivalence to another legally U.S. marketed device. Substantial equivalence means that the new device is at least as safe and effective as the predicate.
A device is substantially equivalent if, in comparison to a predicate it:
has the same intended use as the predicate; and
has the same technological characteristics as the predicate;
or
has the same intended use as the predicate; and
has different technological characteristics and the information submitted to FDA;
does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness; and
demonstrates that the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device.
A claim of substantial equivalence does not mean the new and predicate devices must be identical. Substantial equivalence is established with respect to intended use, design, energy used or delivered, materials, chemical composition, manufacturing process, performance, safety, effectiveness, labeling, biocompatibility, standards, and other characteristics, as applicable.
A device may not be marketed in the U.S. until the submitter receives a letter declaring the device substantially equivalent. If FDA determines that a device is not substantially equivalent, the applicant may:
resubmit another 510(k) with new data,
request a Class I or II designation through the de novo process
file a reclassification petition, or
submit a premarket approval application (PMA).
What is Substantial Equivalence
A 510(k) requires demonstration of substantial equivalence to another legally U.S. marketed device. Substantial equivalence means that the new device is at least as safe and effective as the predicate.
A device is substantially equivalent if, in comparison to a predicate it:
has the same intended use as the predicate; and
has the same technological characteristics as the predicate;
or
has the same intended use as the predicate; and
has different technological characteristics and the information submitted to FDA;
does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness; and
demonstrates that the device is at least as safe and effective as the legally marketed device.
A claim of substantial equivalence does not mean the new and predicate devices must be identical. Substantial equivalence is established with respect to intended use, design, energy used or delivered, materials, chemical composition, manufacturing process, performance, safety, effectiveness, labeling, biocompatibility, standards, and other characteristics, as applicable.
A device may not be marketed in the U.S. until the submitter receives a letter declaring the device substantially equivalent. If FDA determines that a device is not substantially equivalent, the applicant may:
resubmit another 510(k) with new data,
request a Class I or II designation through the de novo process
file a reclassification petition, or
submit a premarket approval application (PMA).
The FDA Classification of BioCurex’s Histo-RECAF(TM) kit.
April 19, 2004 - Source: BioCurex Inc.
More information
