Early Collaboration Meetings
Under the FDA Modernization Act
(FDAMA); Final Guidance for
Industry and for CDRH Staff
Document issued on: February 28, 2001
This document supersedes: Early Collaboration Meetings Under the FDA
Modernization Act (FDAMA); Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff,
February 19, 1998)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Program Operations Staff
Office of Device Evaluation
Center for Devices and Radiological Health Preface
Public Comment
Comments and suggestions may be submitted at any time for Agency consideration to Dockets
Management Branch, Division of Management Systems and Policy, Office of Human Resources
and Management Services, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061,
(HFA-305), Rockville, MD, 20852.  When submitting comments, please refer to the Docket
number 98D-0078 and the exact title and date of this guidance document.  Comments may not be
acted upon by the Agency until the document is next revised or updated.
For questions regarding the use or interpretation of this guidance contact Thinh Nguyen at (240)
276-4010.
Additional Copies
Additional copies are available from the World Wide Web/CDRH at
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/310.pdf, or CDRH Facts-On-Demand at 1-800-899-0381
or 301-827-0111 from a touch-tone telephone.  Press 1 to enter the system and enter the
document number 310 followed by the pound sign (#).  Follow the remaining voice prompts to
complete your request. Early Collaboration Meetings Under the
FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA); Final
Guidance for Industry and for CDRH Staff
This document is intended to provide guidance.  It represents the Agencys current
thinking on this topic.  It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and
does not operate to bind the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the public.  An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the
applicable statute and regulations.
Guidance on Standard Operating Procedures
FDAMA provides for two early collaboration meetings. These meetings are intended to facilitate
interaction between FDA and applicants and provide clear direction for testing and development
of those devices requiring clinical investigations to support marketing.
Determination Meeting
A Determination Meeting, as described in 513(a)(3)(D), is available to anyone anticipating
submitting a PMA or PDP and is intended to provide the applicant with the Agencys
determination of the type of valid scientific evidence that will be necessary to demonstrate that
the device is effective for its intended use.  As a result of this meeting, FDA will determine
whether clinical studies are needed to establish effectiveness and, in consultation with the
applicant, determine the least burdensome way of evaluating device effectiveness that has a
reasonable likelihood of success.  The applicant can expect that FDA will determine if
concurrent randomized controls, concurrent non-randomized controls, historical controls, or
other types of evidence will be acceptable.  FDAs determination is to be written, shared with the
applicant within 30 days following the meeting, and is binding upon the Agency, unless it would
be contrary to public health.
Agreement Meeting
The other opportunity for a meeting established by FDAMA is an Agreement Meeting, described
in  520(g)(7), which is open to any person planning to investigate the safety or effectiveness of
a class III product or any implant.  Thus, unlike the Determination Meeting, the Agreement
Meeting is available to submitters of 510(k)s for eligible devices.  The purpose of this meeting is
to reach agreement on the key parameters of the investigational plan (see 21 CFR 812.25),
including the clinical protocol. The meeting is to be held within 30 days of the receipt of a
request for such a meeting.  Any agreement reached in this meeting is also to be written, shared
with the applicant, and made part of the administrative record.  It is binding on the Agency and
may be changed only with the written agreement of the applicant or when there is a substantial
scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the device.
1 Background
Prior to the passage of FDAMA, the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) had encouraged IDE
sponsors to obtain Agency advice on their proposed bench/animal testing as well as on the
design of their clinical trials before submitting an investigational device exemption (IDE)
application.  Such interactions, referred to as pre-IDEs, allow the Agency to provide early
feedback to sponsors and, in so doing, help to facilitate approval of the IDE.  Pre-IDE meetings
are informal, and the feedback is non-binding on either party.  FDA encourages applicants to
continue to take advantage of these informal communications, as outlined in IDE Guidances
#D95-1, Goals and Initiatives for the IDE Program and #D99-1, Pre-IDE Program: Issues and
Answers.  FDAMA, for the first time, provides for formal collaboration meetings
(Determination and Agreement) where the results of the meetings are now binding.
The Determination and Agreement Meetings should take place early in the development of the
device so the applicant may use the meeting results to plan efficiently for the appropriate study.
FDAMA is silent as to whether these early collaboration meetings are individual events or part
of an ongoing dialogue with the applicant.  Experience and practicality suggest that, particularly
with novel device/technologies, prior dialogue is critical to the effectiveness of these formal
binding meetings.  Preliminary discussions can help clarify and focus on the key issues to be
addressed in the pre-submission materials and in the meetings themselves. Preliminary
discussions may also help an applicant decide between the use of formal binding meetings and
informal meetings. Depending on FDAs familiarity with the device and the degree to which
relevant precedents exist, one or more informal meetings may be useful before a Determination
or Agreement meeting can be productive.
A graphical illustration of how early collaboration meetings fit into this communication
continuum is presented below.  The x-axis represents the device development timeline, while the
y-axis represents the amount known about the device.
  Pre-IDE   Determination Agreement IDE PMA or  100-day    Market
e submission        meeting   meeting 510(k) meeting   approval
c
vi
e
d
t 
u
o
b
a
n 
w
o
n
k
t 
n
u
o
m
A
Time
Figure 1:  Graphical illustration of a typical approach to communication about a new device.
Vertical arrows illustrate typical timing of potential communications between the sponsor and the
Agency; not all will be applicable to every device. Informal communications are also encouraged
throughout the device development process.
2 In recognition that the Agency will not be able to reach useful conclusions unless a fair amount
of planning and commitment have been undertaken by the applicant prior to the meeting,
FDAMA requires that the applicant submit a formal package to the Agency at the time of the
request.  According to FDAMA, the applicant requesting a meeting shall include: (1) a detailed
description of the device; (2) a detailed description of the proposed conditions of use; (3) a
proposed plan for determining whether there is a reasonable assurance of effectiveness; (4) if
available, information regarding the expected performance of the device; and (5) a detailed
clinical protocol (for the Agreement Meeting).
With preliminary discussions and good planning, a Determination or Agreement Meeting should
be completed in one session.  While it is expected that well-prepared attendees will normally
reach consensus on the substantive issues during the course of the meeting, there may be
occasions when new issues emerge from the discussion.  For this reason, it is important that the
applicant firm be represented by someone who has the authority to speak for the firm so that
agreement on these new issues may be reached.  Infrequently, unresolved issues may remain at
the end of the meeting.  In these exceptional situations, the applicant may request that the
issue(s) be tabled and the meeting suspended.  Upon mutual agreement, the early collaboration
meeting would be reconvened at a future time acceptable to both parties to permit additional,
relevant information to be considered by FDA staff before a binding determination or agreement
is reached.
FDAMA makes it clear that the determinations or agreements resulting from these meetings are
to be binding.  In the case of a Determination Meeting under 513(a)(3)(D), the determination
regarding valid scientific evidence is binding on the Agency and cannot be changed unless FDA
concludes that adhering to it could be contrary to public health.  Further, the Agency is to specify
if clinical data are necessary to establish device effectiveness.  In deciding what type of clinical
studies should be conducted, if any, the Agency is charged with considering, in consultation with
the applicant, the least burdensome way of evaluating device effectiveness that has a reasonable
likelihood of success.  In the case of an Agreement Meeting under 520(g)(7), the agreement is
binding on the Agency.  FDAMA specified that the Agency may only change the agreement
when a substantial scientific issue essential to determining the safety or effectiveness of the
device has been identified, and only following an opportunity for the applicant to meet with FDA
to discuss the scientific issue involved.
The binding nature of the agreement or determination is predicated on the applicant not
significantly changing the bases of the agreement or determination (e.g., intended use and
indications, product design, investigational plan, clinical study protocol, etc.). If these bases are
significantly changed, then the agreement or determination will have been abrogated and the
Agency's agreement or determination will no longer be in effect.
Finally, it should be noted that the two new statutory provisions do not address other pre-
submission meetings or topics outside the scope of the agreement or determination.  That is, the
meetings are not intended to serve as pre-PMA submission meetings to discuss formatting of the
application or the strength of a particular clinical data set already produced by a potential PMA
applicant. Pre-PMA submission meetings to address these types of issues should continue to be
held; however, FDA staff should clarify to the applicant that the meeting is intended to help
guide the PMA submission, but it is not a FDAMA-mandated meeting that will result in a
binding agency commitment.  Similarly, the Agreement/Determination Meetings should stay
3 focused on the relevant issues at hand.  Other topics, such as the value of a feasibility study or
the type of data needed to support a labeling claim, may arise.  Because such discussions are
outside the scope of this type of meeting, these discussions should be left to the informal
meetings.
Determination Meeting
Applicant Activities
Meeting Preparation
1.  Contact the appropriate branch to have a general discussion regarding the device.
2.  A request for a Determination Meeting should be: a) clearly identified as such and b)
submitted in triplicate to the Document Mail Center (HFZ-401). The Agency expects that the
submission will be approximately 10-20 pages in length and include the following items:
  Description of the device, highlighting elements involving new technologies or
raising new clinical issues. This description should include, at a minimum:
  General device description
  Engineering drawing
  Device composition/key components/materials
  Mechanism of action/principles of operation
  Device specifications
  Analysis of potential failure modes
  Outline of the proposed conditions of use, including:
  Proposed intended use and indications
  Population for whom use is indicated and environment of use, if applicable
  Summary of instructions for use of the product
  Any proposed warnings, precautions, contraindications, restrictions or training
requirements, if known
  Proposed plan for clinical evaluation of the product (if needed), including:
  Summary of the risk analysis
  Primary endpoints/objectives and how they will be measured
  Secondary endpoints/objectives and how they will be measured
  Success/failure criteria for the overall study and both primary and secondary
individual endpoints
  Study design - controlled/uncontrolled, prospective/retrospective,
randomized/nonrandomized and justification for study design
  Type of control (historical, concurrent, active, none, etc.), identification of
control, and rationale or justification of the control
  Relevant performance information on the device, especially if the device involves
new technology or raises new clinical issues. This information may include:
  Published and/or unpublished data
  Summary of bench and/or animal test data
  Summary of prior clinical experience
4 3.  Arrange for a preliminary meeting (videoconference or teleconference) to review the
submitted information, identify key issues, and discuss any additional information that may
need to be submitted prior to the actual Determination Meeting.
4.  Submit additional information by hardcopy and email or facsimile, as required, and arrange
date and time for formal Determination Meeting.
The Meeting
Meetings may be face-to-face, by videoconference, or by teleconference and should be scheduled
for approximately 1-2 hours. It is important to note that the meeting format will generally be
different for a pre-meeting than for the formal meeting. At a pre-meeting, the applicant should
present and discuss the material submitted to the Agency. The Agency attendees should raise any
questions for the applicant and request any additional information to be submitted prior to the
formal meeting. Finally, the key issues to be addressed in the determination should be identified.
At the formal meeting, the discussion should be focused on these key issues, leading to the
Agencys determination.
Post-Meeting Activities
1.  The applicant should draft meeting minutes and exchange these with the Agency for
review/comment within 7 days following the meeting.
2.  The applicant may wish to complete the checklist entitled, The Sponsors Evaluation of the
Application of the Least Burdensome Principles in Early Collaboration Meetings.  The
Agency will use this checklist to help assess the industrys satisfaction with FDAs
application of the least burdensome approach to determining the type of valid scientific
evidence needed for marketing approval.  The form may be found in Appendix B and, once
completed, it may be faxed to Ms.Wanda Sawyer-Major, Program Operations Staff at (301)
594-2977 at anytime.
Agency Activities
Meeting Preparation
1. A request for a Determination Meeting will be logged in as a pre-IDE submission for
tracking purposes (flagged as a Determination Meeting Request) and assigned a number
(e.g., I000001). Within 30 days of receipt, the team leader for the submission will contact the
applicant to establish dates for any pre-meetings and the formal Determination Meeting.
2. The review division will decide which FDA staff should attend the meeting, but may include
persons specifically requested by the applicant. The attendees may include: the team
leader/project manager, medical officer, statistician, other scientists with expertise in the
product area (from ODE, Office of Compliance (OC), Office of  Surveillance and Biometrics
(OSB), and/or Office of Science and Technology (OST)), the appropriate branch chief, a
division associate, deputy or director, and a member of the Program Operations Staff (POS).
For meetings likely to consider novel products, development strategies, or controversial
5 issues, the division should discuss the issue with and, if appropriate, include the participation
of the Director or Deputy Director of ODE.
3. FDA should conduct an internal pre-meeting (more than one may be necessary) to ensure that
everyone is familiar with the issues.  In accordance with The Systems Approach,1 this
meeting should also be used to consider our knowledge of and experience with similar
products and to formulate FDAs overall strategy for addressing the situation.  A member of
POS should be invited to the internal pre-meeting to provide background information on
similar issues faced by other divisions and to offer guidance on any unique or controversial
regulatory issues raised by the applicants request. The attendees should identify questions
and issues to be discussed with the applicant. The timeline for any pre-meetings and the
formal meeting with the applicant should also be discussed.
The Meeting
See the section with this title on the previous page.
Post-Meeting Activities
1.  At the end of the meeting, the Agency team leader for the application will summarize the
determination or explain any arrangements for tabling the determination, including the date
of the next meeting, if appropriate. A record of attendees and minutes of the meeting should
be kept by both a designated FDA and applicant attendee. A laptop computer may be helpful
in recording the issues discussed and the determination reached. FDA and the applicant
should exchange their respective meeting minutes for review following the meeting. This
exchange may occur electronically for efficiency. The minutes should be in sufficient detail
to reflect the substance of the issues discussed at the meeting; a bulleted format may be
helpful.
2.  The Agency team leader should prepare the memorandum of Agency determination. POS
will work with the team leader and review division to develop the memorandum, and in so
doing, help to ensure that it accurately reflects the outcome of the meeting and is consistent
with Office policy. Within two weeks of the meeting, a draft of the memorandum should be
circulated for review among the FDA participants. The memorandum will then be signed by
the Division Director and conveyed to the applicant within 30 days of the meeting. In
addition, the Agency team leader should complete the checklist entitled, FDAs Evaluation
of the Application of the Least Burdensome Principles in Early Collaboration Meetings.
The checklist can be found in Appendix A of this document and is intended to be used to
evaluate whether the least burdensome principles were considered in reaching the Agency
determination.  A copy of the memorandum and checklist should be placed in the document
jacket, and the pre-IDE should be logged out by the division and POS.
                                                                
1  A Systems Approach to Premarket Review was issued on July 17, 2000 and may be found
on CDRHs website at: www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/prerevapproach.html
6 Agreement Meeting
Applicant Activities
Meeting Preparation
1.  Contact the appropriate branch to have a general discussion regarding the device.
2.  A request for an Agreement Meeting should be: a) clearly identified as such and b) submitted
in triplicate to the Document Mail Center (HFZ-401). The submission should include the
information described above for Determination Meetings as well as the clinical protocol.
Any particular items upon which agreement is to be reached should be clearly identified.
These items may include:
  Sample Size, including a statistical justification
  Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
  Endpoints (Primary and Secondary with acceptance/failure criteria)
  Overall study success criteria including justification
  Study duration
  Number of study sites
  Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) operations (these are also sometimes called Data
and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMBs))
  Planned statistical analysis
  Special informed consent provisions, e.g., waivers
The Agency expects that the submission should be approximately 10-20 pages in length.
3.  Arrange for a preliminary meeting (videoconference or teleconference) to review the
submitted information and to identify key issues that the applicant wishes to reach agreement
on with the Agency.  It is critical that the applicant be as specific as possible (e.g., sample
size) in identifying the issues for agreement.  Identifying broad concepts (e.g., the clinical
protocol) may make reaching an agreement more difficult given the number of variables that
would need to be addressed.  Finally, the applicant should determine if any additional
information needs to be submitted prior to the actual Agreement Meeting.
4. Submit additional information, as required, and provide a list of acceptable dates and times
for the formal Agreement Meeting.
The Meeting
Meetings may be face-to-face, by videoconference, or by teleconference and should be scheduled
for approximately 1-2 hours. It is important to note that the meeting format will generally be
different for a pre-meeting than for the formal meeting. At a pre-meeting, the applicant should
present and discuss the material submitted to the Agency. The Agency attendees should raise any
questions for the applicant and request any additional information to be submitted prior to the
formal meeting. Finally, the key issues on which agreement is to be reached should be identified
by the applicant.  At the formal meeting, the discussion should be focused on these key issues,
hopefully, resulting in a number of areas of agreement.
7 Post-Meeting
1. The applicant should draft meeting minutes and exchange these with the Agency for
review/comment within 7 days following the meeting.
2. The applicant may wish to complete the checklist entitled, The Sponsors Evaluation of the
Application of the Least Burdensome Principles in Early Collaboration Meetings.  This
checklist will be used by the Agency to help assess the industrys satisfaction with FDAs
application of the least burdensome approach in its discussion of clinical trial design issues
during the Agreement Meeting.  The form may be found in Appendix B, and, once
completed, it may be faxed to Ms.Wanda Sawyer-Major, Program Operations Staff at (301)
594-2977 at anytime.
Agency Activities
Meeting Preparation
1. A request for an Agreement Meeting will be logged in as a pre-IDE for tracking purposes
(flagged as an agreement meeting request) and assigned a number (e.g., I000001). Within 7
days of receipt, the team leader for the submission should contact the applicant to establish
dates for pre-meeting(s) and the formal Agreement Meeting. As specified in 520(g)(7)(A),
the formal Agreement Meeting should occur within 30 days of receipt of the request.  It is
strongly recommended, however, that a mutually agreed-upon timeline be established to
increase the probability of a successful meeting.  Therefore, the applicant may request
deferral of the formal meeting until one or more informal pre-meetings is completed.
2. The review division will decide which FDA staff should attend the meeting, but may include
persons specifically requested by the applicant. The attendees may include: the team
leader/project manager, medical officer, statistician, other scientists with expertise in the
product area (from ODE, OC, OSB and/or OST), the appropriate branch chief, a division
associate, deputy or director and a member of the POS. For meetings likely to consider novel
products, development strategies, or controversial issues, the division should discuss the
issue with, and if appropriate, include the participation of the Director or Deputy Director of
ODE.
3. FDA should conduct an internal pre-meeting (more than one may be necessary) to ensure that
everyone is familiar with the issues.  In accordance with The Systems Approach,2 this
meeting should also be used to consider our knowledge of and experience with similar
products and to formulate FDAs overall strategy for addressing the situation.  A member of
POS should be invited to the internal pre-meeting to provide background information on
similar issues faced by other divisions and to offer guidance on any unique or controversial
regulatory issues raised by the applicants request. The attendees should identify questions
and issues to be discussed with the applicant. The timeline for any pre-meetings and the
formal meeting with the applicant should also be discussed.
8 The Meeting
See the section with this title on the previous page.
Post-Meeting
1.  At the end of the meeting, the Agency team leader for the application will summarize the
agreements or explain any arrangements for tabling certain issues, including the date of the
next meeting, if appropriate. A record of attendees and minutes of the meeting should be kept
by both a designated FDA and applicant attendee. A laptop computer may be helpful in
recording the issues discussed and any agreements that have been reached. The FDA
applicant should exchange their respective meeting minutes for review following the
meeting. This exchange may occur electronically for efficiency. The minutes should be in
sufficient detail to reflect the substance of the issues discussed at the meeting; a bulleted
format may be helpful.
2.  The team leader should prepare the memorandum of agreement.  POS will work with the
team leader and review division to develop the memorandum and, in so doing, help to ensure
that it accurately reflects the outcome of the meeting and is consistent with Office policy.
Within two weeks of the meeting, a draft of the memorandum should be circulated for review
among the FDA participants. The memorandum will then be signed by the Division Director
and conveyed to the applicant within 30 days of the meeting.  In addition, the Agency team
leader should complete the checklist entitled, FDAs Evaluation of the Application of the
Least Burdensome Principles in Early Collaboration Meetings.  This checklist can be found
in Appendix A of this document and is intended to be used to evaluate whether the least
burdensome principles were considered in reaching the agreement.  A copy of the
memorandum and checklist should be placed in the document jacket, and the pre-IDE should
be logged out by the division and POS.
9 Appendix A
FDAs Evaluation of the Application of the Least Burdensome Principles
 in Early Collaboration Meetings
Type of Meeting:
(cid:240)   ______  Determination Meeting 513(a)(3)(D)
(cid:240)   ______  Agreement Meeting 520(g)(7)
Division/Branch:  ________________________________________________________
Application Number:  ____________________________________________________
Sponsor:  _______________________________________________________________
Device: _________________________________________________________________
In the early collaboration meeting with the sponsor, were the Least Burdensome principles
applied in:
1.  Determining the Need for Prospective Clinical Data?
a.  Was pre-clinical testing considered in lieu of clinical data?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain: ___________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
b.  Was the use of previously collected non-U.S. data, literature, and/or registry data
considered?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain:____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
2.  Designing the Clinical Trial?
a.  Were alternatives to an actively controlled trial considered?  (cid:240)   ___Yes(cid:240)   ___No
If yes, check the following:
i.   Literature control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)  ___ No
ii.  Historical control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
iii. Non-active control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
iv.  Patient as their own control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
v.  Objective Performance Criteria  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
vi.  Other  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No Appendix A
If other, describe:  ________________________________________________________
If alternatives could not be used, explain:______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
b.  Was the use of surrogate endpoints considered?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain: ________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
c.  Was a least burdensome approach considered in determining how the primary and
secondary endpoints will be measured?
(cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain: ________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
d.  Was early submission of the application considered?  That is, could the application be
submitted after a mutually agreed to percentage of the patients had been followed for a
pre-defined period of time?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain:_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
e.  Was the role of postmarketing information considered as a mechanism of reducing the
premarket requirements?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)  ___ No
Explain:_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.  Were the least burdensome principles applied in other areas of the trial design not mentioned
above?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
If yes, describe:  _____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
Team Leader signature Date
2 Appendix B
Sponsors Evaluation of the Application of the Least Burdensome Principles
 in Early Collaboration Meetings
Type of Meeting:
(cid:240)   ______  Determination Meeting 513(a)(3)(D)
(cid:240)   ______  Agreement Meeting 520(g)(7)
Division/Branch:  ________________________________________________________
Application Number:  ____________________________________________________
Sponsor:  _______________________________________________________________
Device:  _________________________________________________________________
In the early collaboration meeting with the sponsor, were the Least Burdensome principles
applied in:
1. Determining the Need for Prospective Clinical Data?
a.  Was pre-clinical testing considered in lieu of clinical data?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain: ________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
b.  Was the use of previously collected non-U.S. data, literature, and/or registry data
considered?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain: ________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
2.  Designing the Clinical Trial?
a.  Were alternatives to an actively controlled trial considered?  (cid:240)   ___Yes(cid:240)   ___No
If yes, check the following:
i.   Literature control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
ii.  Historical control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
iii. Non-active control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
iv.  Patient as their own control  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
v.  Objective Performance Criteria  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
vi.  Other  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No Appendix B
If other, describe:  ________________________________________________________
If alternatives could not be used, explain:______________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
b.  Was the use of surrogate endpoints considered?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain: ________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
c.  Was a least burdensome approach considered in determining how the primary and
secondary endpoints will be measured?
(cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain: ________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
d.  Was early submission of the application considered?  That is, could the application be
submitted after a mutually agreed to percentage of the patients had been followed for a
pre-defined period of time?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain:_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
e.  Was the role of postmarketing information considered as a mechanism of reducing the
premarket requirements?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
Explain:_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3.  Were the least burdensome principles applied in other areas of the trial design not mentioned
above?  (cid:240)   ___Yes (cid:240)   ___No
If yes, describe:  _____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Applicant Contact Name and Phone Number (Optional):_______________________________
Once completed, fax to Ms. Wanda Sawyer-Major at (301) 594-2977
2