Source: https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/nidek-inc-08082014
Timestamp: 2020-07-08 11:15:20
Document Index: 755845954

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 321', '§ 351', 'art 820', '§ 352', '§ 360', 'art 806']

Nidek Inc - 08/08/2014 | FDA
Nidek Inc - 08/08/2014
Nidek Inc August 08, 2014
Dear Mr. Iwata:
During an inspection of your firm located in Fremont, CAon March 24, 2014 through April 14, 2014, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures the Nidek EC-5000 Excimer Laser System, YAG Laser System, AC-Powered Keratome, AC-Powered Tonometer, RT-5100 Refractor, AFC-330 Non-Mydriatic Auto Fundus Camera, GYC-1000 Green Laser Photocoagulator System, and MC-500 Multicolor Scan Laser Photocoagulator System. 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 any function of the body.
This inspection revealed that 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 two responses from Jun Iwata, Chief Operating Officer dated May 1, 2014 and June 19, 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 the responses below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to adequately establish procedures for corrective and preventive action as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a).
For example: in response to our observations listed on Form FDA-483 at the conclusion of our 2013 inspection you opened CAPAs for failure to report corrections and removals conducted to reduce risk to health posed by a device, and failure to document personnel training. CAPA 14-0005 and CAPA 14-0009 were opened on February 25, 2013 and closed March 5, 2014 without implementing actions needed to correct and prevent the quality problems.
Your response is partially inadequate and we are unable to evaluate the adequacy of portions of your response. In your correspondence dated May 1, 2014 you indicate that you will review and revise SOP-014-5 as appropriate, and conduct a two year review of complaint records and service manual annexes to determine if additional recalls need to be reported. The SOP was not included with your response for our review. Your response also lacks an action plan to identify the deficiencies in your current quality system that have allowed for your repeated failure to report recalls, adequately train personnel, and implementation of CAPA procedures in compliance with 21 CFR 820.100.
2. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for receiving, reviewing, and evaluating complaints by a formally designated unit as required by 21 CFR 820.198 (a).
A. For example: 87% (20 of 23) of the customer service orders reviewed during our inspection meet your definition of a complaint as stated in your Complaint Handling Procedure, document # SOP-019-14; however, no complaint records were initiated.
B. Complaints 13-0053, and 13-0114 indicate that doctors reported having problems with four and eight month old YC-1800 YAG Laser Systems during peripheral iridotomy procedures. Complaint 13-0114 additionally states that the laser is tearing instead of making a hole. The customer service coordinators that took the initial service requests stated during our inspection that additional information is routinely obtained by your service representatives called “clinical person”; however, there is no additional information about these failures, the number of affected patients, or the severity of the patient “problems”.
C. Complaint 14-0016 indicates that a MK-2000 Keratome was cutting too thin and that some patients had problems. The customer service coordinator that took the initial service request stated during our inspection that additional information is routinely obtained by your service representatives called “clinical person”; however, there is no additional information about these failures, the number of affected patients, or the severity of the patient “problems”.
You indicate in your response dated 5/1/2014 that you have made changes to SOP-019 and SOP-020, and retrained personnel. You have also committed to conduct a two year retrospective review of service requests to determine if additional complaint investigations are needed. The response is inadequate in that you have not identified your failure to implement the existing procedure, or propose a corrective action plan for the failure to implement procedures. In addition, you identify the unclear guidance and unclear service standard operating procedures as a contributing cause for this observation. Your response includes a revised complaint handling flow chart. This response is also inadequate in that the flow chart continues to lack definitions or clear guidance on evaluating service orders for complaints.
3. Failure to review and evaluate all complaints to determine if an investigation is needed as required by 21 CFR 820.198(b).
For example: 72% (18 of 25) complaint records including complaints 13-0053, 13-0114, 14-0016, reviewed during our inspection attribute the root cause of the complaints to wear and tear during service calls, and no investigations were conducted. In addition, your Customer Relations & Compliance Manager confirmed that “wear and tear” is noted as the malfunction code when the cause of the malfunction is unknown and not investigated.
Your responses dated May 1, 2014 and June 19, 2014 are inadequate in that you have not identified the service personnel’s failure to follow the procedures in place at the time complaints 13-0053, 13-0114, and 14-0016 were received. The changes to SOP-019 and SOP-026 do not identify the root cause of the service personnel’s failure to follow written procedures. You indicate in your response that you will have better coordination with Nidek Japan with regard to complaint investigations. Your response is inadequate in part because you have not identified the need for improved coordination with Marco Opthalmic, Inc. or other complaint sources.
Our inspection also revealed that your firm’s RT-5100 Refractor, AFC-330 Non-Mydriatic Auto Fundus Camera, GYC-1000 Green Laser Photocoagulator System, and MC-500 Multicolor Scan Laser Photocoagulator System 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 806 – Medical Devices; Reports of Corrections and Removals. Significant violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Failure to submit a written report to FDA of any correction or removal of a device initiated to reduce a risk to health posed by a device, or to remedy a violation of the Act caused by the device which may present a risk to health as required by 21 CFR 806.10(a).
For example: 1) on July 10, 2013 you issued Service Manual Annex No. 34085-AN062E to correct the configuration of a bracket and screw for specific serial numbers of the Nidek RT-5100 Refractors already distributed. The change was in response to reports of facial lacerations caused by falling near rods on the RT-5100 Refractor; 2) on March 13, 2014 you issued Service Manual Annex No. 15411-AN016E to correct white spot artifacts on images caused by dirty lenses on specific serial numbers of the Nidek AFC-330 Non-Mydriatc Auto Fundus Cameras already distributed; 3) on July 29, 2013 you issued Service Manual Annex No. 17164-AN013E to add laser aperture labels to the Nidek GYC-1000 Green Laser Photocoagulators that lacked the required label to reduce the accidental exposure to the laser, and 4) on July 29, 2013 you issued Service Manual Annex No. 17353-AN035E to add laser aperture labels to the Nidek MC-500 Multicolor Laser Photocoagulators that lacked the required label to reduce the accidental radiation exposure to users and patients.
We reviewed your firm’s responses and conclude that they are not adequate. In your response dated May 1, 2013 you indicate you made changes to SOPs but do not include the revised SOPs. You also indicate that you plan on adding a new position of Clinical Specialist. Your June 19, 2014 update correspondence includes the revised SOPs, indicates that you have filled the Clinical Specialist position, and includes an update that four recall reports have been submitted to the San Francisco Recall Coordinator for the four specific events described on the Form FDA-483. Your firm’s response is inadequate in that you have not identified other sources of corrections/removals such as Dear Doctor Letters, or Technical Bulletins. The changes to the SOPs cannot be evaluated at this time because the decision to report and the criteria used to report a recall are to be made on a case by case basis. We will evaluate the adequacy of these SOPs during a follow-up inspection.
Your firm’s response should be sent to Lawton W. Lum, Compliance Director at the following address: 1431 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, CA 94502. Please refer to the Unique Identification Number 434750 when replying. If you have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact: Sergio Chavez at (510) 337-6861 or (510) 337-6703 fax.
Nidek Inc - Close Out Letter 8/25/15