Source: https://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2013/ucm369275
Timestamp: 2019-02-20 05:41:23
Document Index: 774150169

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 321', 'art 820', '§ 352', '§ 360', 'art 803', 'art 803', 'art 803', '§ 351', '§ 360', '§ 360', '§ 352', '§ 360', '§ 360', '§ 360', '§ 352', '§ 360', '§ 360', '§ 381']

Suzhou Armocon Technology Co. Ltd 9/16/13
Mr. Filip Sedic, Owner
Suzhou Armocon Technology Co., Ltd.
3F No. 77 Suhong Middle Road SIP
Jiangsu, China 215027
Dear Mr. Sedic:
During an inspection of your firm located in Jiangsu, China, on July 8, 2013, through July 11, 2013, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures Vaginal Pessary (Luna Beads) and Tor II (penile ring) devices. Under section 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), 21 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 function of the body.
We received your response, dated July 20, 2013, concerning our investigator’s observations noted on the Form FDA 483 (FDA 483), List of Inspectional Observations, which was issued to your firm. We address this response below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
a) Your firm has not established written design control procedures for Luna Beads, which is a class II medical device regulated under 21 CFR 884.3575, vaginal pessary device.
b) Your firm implemented a new design for the Luna Beads, where it changed the inner ball of the Luna Beads from metal balls to coated metal balls. This change resulted from customer complaints regarding rust on the metal balls. However, your firm has not conducted design validation and risk assessment for the newly designed Luna Beads.
We reviewed your response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your response indicated that your firm plans to implement a process for conducting and documenting design validation during the development of a product. Your response indicated that your firm has established a design validation procedure; however, this procedure was not included in your response. Your response did not indicate when your firm expects to complete its design validation activities and submit the validation results to the FDA. Also, your response did not indicate whether your firm will conduct a review of all products to evaluate if there are similar deficiencies among your firm’s other product lines.
2. Failure to validate computer software for its intended use according to an established protocol when computer or automated data processing systems are used as part of production or the quality system, as required by 21 CFR 820.70(i). For example, your firm has been using the (b)(4) software program to generate a unique serial number for each product since 2011. The serial number is used on the inner and outer packing of the finished device for tracking purpose. However, during the inspection, your firm stated to the FDA investigator that it has not validated the (b)(4) software program and it has no established protocol for doing so.
We reviewed your firm’s response and conclude that it is not adequate. The response included Serialization Procedure PRO-SP-0804, revision A. This procedure describes how your firm generates a unique serial number and uses it to track products throughout its shipment process. However, the procedure does not describe how your firm will validate the computer software for its intended use.
3. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for finished device acceptance to ensure that each product run, lot, or batch of finished devices meets acceptance criteria, as required by 21 CFR 820.80(d). For example, your firm does not have written procedures for conducting final device inspection. Your firm’s Final Inspection Specification, form PRO-DG-0341, for the Tor II device outlines the acceptance criteria that need to be verified during the final device inspection. However, the form that documents the final device inspection for the Tor II device (For-0002 Rev. B, dated January 4, 2014) was missing verification checks for all acceptance criteria identified in PRO-DG-0341.
4. Failure to establish and maintain procedures to ensure that device history records (DHRs) for each batch, lot, or unit are maintained to demonstrate that the device is manufactured in accordance with the device master record and the requirements of 21 CFR Part 820, as required by 21 CFR 820.184. For example, your firm has not established and maintained procedures for capturing the production history of the Tor II and Luna Bead devices. Your firm has only documented the production date for all of its devices.
We reviewed your firm’s response and conclude that it is not adequate. The response included a Serialization Procedure, PRO-SP-0804, revision A. This procedure describes how your firm generates a unique serial number and uses it to track products throughout the shipment process. The procedure has not established a purpose or scope and has not specified the type of tracking records that need to be included in the DHR.
Our inspection also revealed that your firm’s Luna Beads and Tor II devices 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 respecting the device that is required by or under section 519 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360i, and 21 CFR Part 803 - Medical Device Reporting (MDR). Significant violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Failure to adequately develop, maintain, and implement written MDR procedures, as required by 21 CFR 803.17. For example, your firm has not established MDR procedures.
We reviewed your firm’s response and conclude that it is not adequate. The response included a written MDR procedure, Medical Device Report Handling, Document No: SOP-05-0004, Revision A, dated July 20, 2013. Your firm’s MDR procedure is deficient. Specifically, the following deficiencies were noted:
1. SOP-05-0004 has not established internal systems that provide for timely and effective identification, communication, and evaluation of events that may be subject to MDR requirements. For example:
There are no definitions of what your firm will consider to be a reportable event under 21 CFR Part 803. To facilitate the correct interpretation of reportable events and to assure the quality of MDR submissions, your firm’s procedure should include definitions based on 21 CFR 803.3 of the terms “become aware,” “caused or contributed,” “malfunction,” “MDR reportable event,” and “serious injury,” and definitions of the terms “reasonably known” and “reasonably suggests,” found respectively in 21 CFR 803.50(b) and 803.20(c)(1)
2. SOP-05-0004 has not established internal systems that provide for a standardized review process or procedure for determining when an event meets the criteria for reporting under 21 CFR Part 803. Specifically, the following are not addressed:
3. SOP-05-0004 has not established internal systems that provide for timely transmission of complete medical device reports. Specifically, the following are not addressed:
c. The circumstances under which an event must be submitted as a 30-calendar day or 5-day report.
e. The circumstances under which your firm must submit initial, supplemental or follow-up report and the requirements for such reports.
4. SOP-05-0004 has not described how your firm will address documentation and record-keeping requirements, including:
If your firm,wishes to submit MDR reports via electronic submission, it can follow the directions stated at the following URL:
If your firm, wishes to discuss MDR reportability criteria or to schedule further communications, it may contact the Reportability Review Team by email at ReportabilityReviewTeam@fda.hhs.gov
Our inspection also revealed that Luna Beads are adulterated under section 501(f)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(f)(1)(B), because your firm does not have an approved application for premarket approval (PMA) in effect pursuant to section 515(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360e(a), or an approved application for an investigational device exemption under section 520(g) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360j(g). Luna Beads are also misbranded under section 502(o) the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(o), because your firm did not notify the agency of its intent to introduce the device into commercial distribution, as required by section 510(k) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360(k). For a device requiring premarket approval, the notification required by section 510(k) is deemed satisfied when a PMA is pending before the agency. [21 CFR 807.81(b)] The kind of information that your firm needs to submit in order to obtain approval or clearance for the device is described on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/default.htm. The FDA will evaluate the information that your firm submits and decide whether the product may be legally marketed.
Additionally, your firm’s promotional materials for Luna Beads include the following medical claims: for Kegel workout “with proven health benefit for women of all ages,” “prepare for a healthier pregnancy and easier postnatal recovery,” and “significantly reduce chances of incontinence and pelvic floor disorders.” These medical claims should be removed from promotion for Luna Beads until your firm receives FDA clearance and only if clearance encompasses these intended uses.
Under section 510 of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360, manufacturers of medical devices are required to annually register with the FDA. In September 2007, section 510 of the Act was amended by the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-85) to require domestic and foreign device establishments to submit their annual establishment registration and device listing information to FDA by electronic means (section 510(p) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360(p)) during the period beginning October 1st and ending December 31st of each year.
Our records indicate that your firm has not listed Luna Beads and Tor II devices. Therefore, these devices are misbranded within the meaning of section 502(o) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 352(0), in that the devices were manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed in an establishment not duly registered under section 510 of the Act,21 U.S.C. § 360, and were not included in a list required by section 510(j) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360(j).
Given the serious nature of the violations of the Act, Luna Beads manufactured by your firm are subject to refusal of admission under section 801(a) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 381(a), in that they appear to be adulterated. As a result, FDA is taking steps to refuse entry of these devices into the United States, known as “detention without physical examination,” until these violations are corrected. In order to remove the devices from detention, your firm should provide a written response to this Warning Letter as described below and correct the violations described in this letter. We will notify you if your firm’s response appears to be adequate, and we may need to re-inspect your firm’s facility to verify that the appropriate corrections and/or corrective actions have been made.
Your firm’s response should be sent to: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Compliance, Field Operations Branch,
White Oak Building 66, Rm 2609, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993. Refer to CMS case #408940 when replying. If you have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact: Debra E. Demeritt, Branch Chief at 301-796-5770.
Mr. Pavle Sedic
4320 Stevens Creek Bulevard
Suzhou Armocon Technology Co. Ltd - Close Out Letter 11/25/15