Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying the software application for contraception into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the software application for contraception's classification. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part by reducing regulatory burdens.
This order is effective March 6, 2019. The classification was applicable on August 10, 2018.
Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Paige Brown, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G627, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6417, Paige.Brown@fda.hhs.gov.
End Further Info
Start Supplemental Information
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Start Printed Page 7994
Upon request, FDA has classified the software application for contraception as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class III assignment.
The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)). We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients' access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application (PMA) in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i), defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
II. De Novo Classification
For this device, FDA issued an order on August 28, 2017, finding Natural Cycles not substantially equivalent to a predicate not subject to PMA. Thus, the device remained in class III in accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act when we issued the order.
On September 20, 2017, Natural Cycles Nordic AB submitted a request for De Novo classification of Natural Cycles. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.
Therefore, on August 10, 2018, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 884.5370. We have named the generic type of device software application for contraception, and it is identified as a device that provides user-specific fertility information for preventing a pregnancy. This device includes an algorithm that performs analysis of patient-specific data (e.g., temperature, menstrual cycle dates) to distinguish between fertile and non-fertile days, then provides patient-specific recommendations related to contraception.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
Table 1—Software Application for Contraception Risks and Mitigation Measures
|Identified risks||Mitigation measures|
|Unintended pregnancy||Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis; clinical performance testing; human factors and usability testing; and labeling.|
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
III. Analysis of Environmental Impact
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Start Printed Page 7995Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in the guidance document “De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in part 820, regarding design controls, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Start List of Subjects
End List of Subjects
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 884 is amended as follows:
PART 884—OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES
Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 884 continues to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Start Amendment Part
2. Add § 884.5370 to subpart F to read as follows: End Amendment Part
Software application for contraception.
(a) Identification. A software application for contraception is a device that provides user-specific fertility information for preventing a pregnancy. This device includes an algorithm that performs analysis of patient-specific data (e.g., temperature, menstrual cycle dates) to distinguish between fertile and non-fertile days, then provides patient-specific recommendations related to contraception.
(b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:
(1) Clinical performance testing must demonstrate the contraceptive effectiveness of the software in the intended use population.
(2) Human factors performance evaluation must be provided to demonstrate that the intended users can self-identify that they are in the intended use population and can correctly use the application, based solely on reading the directions for use for contraception.
(3) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be performed. Documentation must include the following:
(i) A cybersecurity vulnerability and management process to assure software functionality; and
(ii) A description of the technical parameters of the software, including the algorithm used to determine fertility status and alerts for user inputs outside of expected ranges.
(4) Labeling must include:
(i) The following warnings and precautions:
(A) A statement that no contraceptive method is 100% effective.
(B) A statement that another form of contraception (or abstinence) must be used on days specified by the application.
(C) Statements of any factors that may affect the accuracy of the contraceptive information.
(D) A warning that the application cannot protect against sexually transmitted infections.
(ii) Hardware platform and operating system requirements.
(iii) Instructions identifying and explaining how to use the software application, including required user inputs and how to interpret the application outputs.
(iv) A summary of the clinical validation study and results, including effectiveness of the application as a stand-alone contraceptive and how this effectiveness compares to other forms of legally marketed contraceptives.
End Supplemental Information
Dated: February 28, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-04028 Filed 3-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P