How To Choose A Predicate Device

A 510(k) is a marketing submission to the FDA made by a manufacturer to demonstrate that a new device is substantially equivalent to an existing "predicate device." This regulatory pathway involves comparing the new device to the predicate device; if the new device is deemed similar enough, it is cleared for sale. In this article, we will explore the best strategies for selecting the appropriate predicate device for your 510(k) submission.

How do I find similar devices?

Device manufacturers are often familiar with products similar to their own. But if you are unsure, the FDA's 510(k) database is a valuable resource for identifying devices with comparable intended uses and technologies.

To begin, most submitters use basic device information—such as trade names, manufacturers, 510(k) numbers, and classification details—to identify potential predicate devices. By leveraging this database, you can narrow down your options and then review the 510(k) Summary and Indications for Use documents to make direct comparisons with your device.

How do I choose the best predicate device?

When faced with multiple predicate device options, consider the following selection criteria to make the best choice:

(1)     Select a Recently Cleared Device: Choose the device that was recently cleared through the 510(k) process to ensure it reflects current technology and standards. 

(2)     Choose a Device with Well-Recognized Testing Methods: Prefer a predicate that used established testing methods and recognized standards in its 510(k) submission. This not only strengthens your justification for substantial equivalence but also provides clarity on the testing required for your own device.

(3)     Examine Post-Market Surveillance Data: Review the predicate device’s post-market data to ensure there are no significant safety concerns or design-related recalls. Search publicly available databases, such as Medical Device Safety and CBER Safety & Availability, for reports on injuries, deaths, or malfunctions. Frequent safety events or recalls may indicate fundamental design flaws, so you definitely don’t want to state that you are “just like” that device.

(4)     Consider Multiple Predicates if Necessary: In some cases, you may need to reference multiple predicates to fully capture your device’s features. However, always clearly identify the primary predicate that most closely resembles your device.

How do I establish equivalence?

Many inventors make the mistake of highlighting how their device is different, new, and better. However, this approach is counterproductive for a 510(k) submission. The primary goal is to demonstrate that your device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device. Here are the key areas to focus on to achieve this equivalence:

1. Intended Use: The predicate device should have a similar intended use, including the patient population, anatomical site, and disease state. The closer the match in these areas, the stronger your equivalence argument.

   
   

2. Technological Characteristics: Your device and the predicate device should share similar technological characteristics, such as the mechanism of action, energy source, and materials used. If there are differences in technology, it’s crucial to demonstrate that these differences do not raise new safety or effectiveness concerns.

   
   

3. Device Testing: As noted earlier, it's important to choose a predicate device that was cleared using well-established testing methods. These can include FDA-recognized voluntary consensus standards, FDA guidance documents, qualified medical device development tools (MDDTs), or widely accepted methods from the public domain or scientific literature. After identifying potential predicate devices, FDA recommends reviewing the nonclinical tests submitted in their 510(k) submissions to ensure your testing is aligned.

   
   

4. Clinical Data: If the predicate device required clinical or preclinical data, you will likely need to conduct similar testing. However, it’s essential to assess whether the clinical data from the predicate device can support your device’s claims of equivalence. Recent FDA efforts have aimed at reducing animal testing requirements for device submissions, so reviewing the relevant FDA guidance can provide insight into minimizing these tests.

   
   

The 510(k) submission process frequently used pathway for bringing a medical device to market. By carefully selecting the right predicate, manufacturers can strengthen their case for equivalence and ensure a smooth submission review by the FDA. By using tools such as the FDA's 510(k) database, to select a predicate with recent clearance, established testing methods, and strong post-market surveillance data, device manufacturers can improve their chances of a successful 510(k) submission and bring safe, effective products to market efficiently.