Source: https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2014/ucm410865.htm
Timestamp: 2018-10-22 16:13:15
Document Index: 637241198

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 321', '§ 351', 'art 820', '§ 352', '§ 360', 'art 803']

Pharma Tech Solutions, Inc 7/7/14
WL # 26-14
Mr. Keith M. Berman, President
During an inspection of your firm located in Westlake Village, California on March 4 through 6, 2014, investigators from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures GenStrip™ glucose test strips. Under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), [21 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 321(h)], these products are devices because they are intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or to affect the structure or any function of the body.
This inspection revealed these devices are adulterated within the meaning of section 501(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(h), in that the methods used in, or the facilities or controls used for, their manufacture, packing, storage, or installation are not in conformity with the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the Quality System regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820.
We received a response from your firm on March 27, 2014, concerning our investigator’s observations noted on the Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), List of Inspectional Observations, that was issued to your firm. We address this response below, in relation to each of the noted violations.
1. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for implementing corrective and preventive action, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a). Specifically, your firm could not provide any corrective and preventative action procedures or files for review.
Your firm’s response dated March 26, 2014, is not adequate. Your firm submitted a “Corrective and Preventative Action” procedure, Document #SOP003, Revision 1. However, there is no evidence that the referenced procedure has been implemented. Specifically, there is no effective date noted for the procedure. In addition, your procedure does not address employing appropriate statistical methodology where necessary to detect recurring quality problems.
2. Records of complaint investigations do not include required information. Specifically, complaints involving the possible failure of a device to meet specifications lacked complete documentation of investigation activities, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(e). For example,
a. Complaint call report ID (b)(4) received on December 13, 2013, involves GenStrips that resulted in a reading “well beyond the control range” after recoding a (b)(4). The complainant was advised the strips may have been stored improperly. The complaint call report was set to complete without documentation of meter information, the GenStrip lot number, or any investigation performed.
b. Complaint call report ID (b)(4) received on December 27, 2013, involves GenStrips read on a (b)(4) Meter resulting in “weirdly high readings”. Complainant stated she was told by (b)(4) that the GenStrip is not compatible with her meter. However, the call report states the complainant was advised the meter is compatible, and the complainant may have gotten strips which were stored improperly. The call was logged as an “Information” call and was set to complete without documentation of meter information, the GenStrip lot number, or any investigation performed.
c. Complaint call report ID (b)(4) received on January 2, 2014, involves GenStrips that resulted in “strange inconsistent readings: 247, 164, and 222.” The complainant was advised to try testing the control solution and see if they can obtain a reading within the acceptable range if not “they may have a bad batch”. The complainant was advised to contact the seller for a replacement. The complaint call status was set to “follow-up”; however, no additional information was documented.
d. Complaint call report ID (b)(4) received on February 12, 2014, involves a GenStrip “bg” test that gave a “much higher result than seemed accurate” and a control test which was reportedly out of range using a (b)(4). The complainant was advised there may have been a mishap in shipping and that he should contact the seller for a replacement or refund. On March 4, 2014, a follow-up with the complainant revealed the distributor couldn’t determine why the readings were higher, other than they may have been stored improperly. Despite having received similar complaints on the same lot (b)(4), the complaint status was set to complete without including additional meter information or further investigation.
Your firm’s response dated March 26, 2014, is not adequate. You provided a complaint procedure titled “Customer Complaint Procedure”, Document #SOP001 with your response. However, there is no evidence the referenced procedure has been implemented. Specifically, there is no effective date noted for the procedure. In addition, your response did not indicate whether a retrospective review of complaints would be conducted to determine whether investigations and corrective actions are needed.
Our inspection also revealed the GenStrip Test Strips are misbranded under Section 502(t)(2) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(t)(2), in that your firm failed or refused to furnish material or information regarding the devices that is required by or under Section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360i, and 21 CFR Part 803 - Medical Device Reporting. Significant deviations include, but are not limited to:
Failure to develop, maintain and implement Medical Device Reporting (MDR) procedures, as required by 21 CFR 803.17. For example, your firm does not have an MDR procedure.
The adequacy of your firm’s response dated March 26, 2014, cannot be determined at this time. Your firm submitted an MDR procedure titled “Medical Device Reporting (MDR) Procedure”, Document #SOP002, Revision 1. However, there is no evidence that the referenced procedure has been implemented. Additionally, there is no effective date noted for the procedure.
Please provide an MDR procedure with an effective implementation date within thirty (30) days. Your response should be mailed to:
DPS/ MDR Policy Branch
10903 New Hampshire Ave, WO 66, Room 3208
If you have questions regarding this letter, please contact Marco Esteves, Compliance Officer, at 949-608-4439.
David Mazzera, Ph.D., Branch Chief
1500 Capitol Ave. – MS 7602