WARNING LETTER
Jiangsu Caina Medical Co., Ltd
MARCS-CMS 687033 —
July 18, 2024
Product:
Medical Devices
Recipient:
Recipient Name
Jun Lu Board
Recipient Title
Chairman
Jiangsu Caina Medical Co., Ltd
No. 23 Huanxi Road
Zhutang Town
Jiangyin City
Jiangsu Sheng
,
China
Issuing Office:
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
United States
WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Jun Lu,
During an inspection of your firm located at No. 23 Huanxi Road Zhutang Town, Jiangyin City, Jiangsu, China on March 11 through March 23, 2024, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures various medical devices including Sterile Luer Lock Syringes without Needles and Sterile Enteral Syringes. 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.
The inspection revealed that these devices are adulterated under section 501(h) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 351(h), because 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 responses from Jun Lu dated April 16, 2024, May 15, 2024, and June 15, 2024, 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 these responses below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
Quality System Regulation Violations
1. Failure to adequately establish and maintain procedures for corrective and preventive action (CAPA) as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a).
a. Specifically, your firm did not ensure sources of quality data were analyzed to identify existing and potential causes of nonconforming product, or other quality problems, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(1).
Your firm manufactured Sterile Luer Lock Syringes without Needles cleared under K113091 and Sterile Enteral Syringes cleared under K190502, under the brand name “Monoject”, for distribution by Cardinal Health in the US beginning on/about June 2023. FDA discovered during its inspection that starting in July 2023, your firm received at least 41 US market complaints related to syringe pump incompatibility and/or incorrect volume detection for these syringes. However, your firm did not adequately analyze these complaints to determine if a CAPA should be initiated.
b. Your firm failed to investigate the cause of nonconformities relating to product, processes, and the quality system, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(2).
For example, FDA discovered during its inspection that your firm conducted an investigation into complaint 20230705 for syringe pump incompatibility for the Cardinal Health branded Luer Lock syringes on July 27, 2023. Your investigation confirmed pump incompatibility was an issue in that it found that 20mL Cardinal Health branded Monoject syringes were not recognized by Medfusion pumps while the same syringes were recognized by Alaris pumps. The complaint additionally noted that for recognized syringes, the healthcare provider was unable to calibrate the syringe prior to use with the pump, and shared concerns related to inaccurate dosing
of anesthesia medication. However, your firm failed to evaluate the inaccurate dosing issues and did not consider delivery accuracy and volume detection as part of this investigation. The complaint was closed without opening a CAPA. While FDA acknowledges that a CAPA for the issue was opened on August 28, 2023, it appears that this CAPA was opened only after additional complaints were received, and not in response to complaint 20230705 when it was received by your firm.
A similar investigation was also conducted for complaint 20231008 for Cardinal Health branded Monoject Enteral syringes on October 23, 2023, related to syringe incompatibility with the Medela feeding pump in the Neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Your firm conducted testing to show that the 35mL Monoject Enteral syringe could be recognized by Perfusor, Alaris, and Medfusion pumps; however, the Medela feeding pump that was the subject of the complaint was not evaluated. The complaint stated that the customer was previously using the “Covidien brand” and “[t]oday they received the Cardinal brand and they do not work. They look similar but are a different diameter. They do not work in the pumps” and noted concerns with the Cardinal brand “leaving no work around to feed the NICU infants.” Your firm did not investigate failure of the syringes with the Medela feeding pump or the alleged syringe nonconformity indicating the diameter of the two syringes labeled Monoject were different. The complaint was closed without opening a CAPA.
A Class I recall to remove the Monoject Luer lock and Enteral sterile syringes manufactured by your firm under K113091 and K190502 was initiated by Cardinal Health on December 28, 2023 following an earlier Class 1 recall for the Monoject Luer lock syringes Cardinal Health initiated on September 20, 2023, due to recognition and compatibility issues with syringe pumps. As part of this recall activity, FDA also issued a Letter to Healthcare Providers to advise that Cardinal Health Monoject syringes, when used with syringe pumps or patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pumps, may result in recognition, compatibility, and pump performance issues such as overdose, underdose, delay in therapy, and delays in occlusion alarms. Based on FDA’s inspectional findings, it appears that your firm’s failure to thoroughly analyze and investigate complaint data for these syringes may have contributed to a delay in recognition that the risk of incompatibility applied to additional sizes of Cardinal Health Monoject syringes.
We reviewed your firm’s responses and concluded that they are not adequate. Your response included revised CAPA and complaint handling procedures, but you have not provided evidence to support that the new procedures have been implemented, or that they are effective. Your response states that a retrospective review of complaints from 2019-2024 was performed which resulted in opening 12 new CAPAs, but documentation of the complaint analysis and investigations that resulted in opening these CAPAs was not provided.
2. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for validating the device design, including risk analysis, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(g).
Specifically, your Risk Management Report for Disposable Syringes without Needles, RMR-ZSQ02, Ver. B0, dated December 30, 2022, and effective when your firm began manufacturing these devices for Cardinal Health under the brand name “Monoject”, did not include the hazard of use in an infusion pump. Your firm updated this report (Ver C0) on November 10, 2023, to include the hazard of “The syringe is connected to pump”, with an assigned risk level of 4 (which your firm considers acceptable), a severity level of S2 “serious” and a probability level of P2 “Very few happened”, even though your firm had received dozens of syringe pump incompatibility complaints of which at least 11 were MDR reportable events related to over-delivery of medication in critical care patients. Your firm was also aware that the use of these syringes in infusion pumps
resulted in the initiation of a Class I recall by Cardinal Health because these Cardinal Health Monoject syringes, when used with syringe pumps, may result in pump performance issues such as overdose, underdose, delay in therapy, and delays in occlusion alarms. Your updated risk analysis determinations in Version C0 do not seem appropriate given your firm’s awareness of complaints, MDRs and the Class 1 recall associated with the hazard of use in an infusion pump for these syringes.
Your firm also failed to verify that the risk control measures identified in Version C0 for this hazard were implemented or effective. Your firm lists “Identify professional use or Rx only on the labels and IFU” as the risk control measure for the hazard of the use in pumps. However, no instructions for use, or IFU, were provided with these devices.
Further, though the device labels do contain an Rx symbol, FDA is not aware of any information provided to date from your firm that explains whether the inclusion of an Rx symbol without an IFU for these devices is an effective risk control measure with respect to the hazard of use in an infusion pump for these devices.
Syringe infusion pumps are used to deliver precise doses of high-risk medications to vulnerable patient populations including infusions in neonates and delivery of anesthesia drugs during surgery. Your risk analysis process should be able to continually identify, evaluate, control, and monitor the risks associated with the use of your device.
We reviewed your firm’s responses and concluded that they are not adequate. Your response provided an Updated Risk Assessment Report for sterile single use syringes that now includes as the risk control action for pump use “IFU states that the syringes should be used manually.” Your response also states that you have reviewed your US syringe SKUs (CAINA US SKU LIST-labeling IFU Check) and evaluated if the labeling of these products complies with the applicable risk analysis. Products without compliant labeling have been identified and shipment has been stopped until updated instructions can be included. The products identified as needing updated instructions all refer to K113091 and are sold under the brands Vesco, McKesson, Monoject, One-Care, Wellmed, Ceros, Avanos, Caina, Resilient, and Henry Schein. The Revised Package Label for Cardinal Health Monoject syringes has been provided which includes additional warnings not to use in pumps on the outer labeling. However, the risk severity level and probability level of the pump use hazard in your risk analysis has not changed. For the other 45 SKUs identified in the response as needing updated labels or IFUs, no updated labeling has been provided.
In addition, we offer the following comment regarding Observation 1 on the FDA 483, along with our review of your responses as they pertain to this citation:
•
Failure to submit a report to the FDA no later than 30 calendar days after the day that your firm received or otherwise became aware of information, from any source, that reasonably suggests that a device that it markets has malfunctioned and this device or a similar device that your firm markets would be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury, if the malfunction were to recur, as required by 21 CFR 803.50(a)(2).
For example, the information included for Complaint Nos. 20230909, 20230910, 20231001, 20231003, 20231012, 20231102, 20231202, 20231204, 20240101 and 20240102 reasonably suggests that your firm’s syringes malfunctioned (i.e., compatibility issues, leaks, contamination, and ruptures) while in use. Your firm initiated recall Z-0112-2024 and recalls Z-1937-2024, Z-0146-2024 to Z-0150-2024 for the same referenced malfunctions. Per the Preamble, in the Medical Devices; Medical User Facility and Manufacturer Reporting, Certification and Registration; Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. 63585 (Dec. 11, 1995), Comment 12, a malfunction is reportable if the manufacturer takes or would be required to take an action under sections 518 or 519(g) of the act as a result of the malfunction of the device or other similar devices. There is no information included for the complaints that rules out that the referenced malfunctions would not be likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if they were to recur. As such, each of the referenced complaints represents a reportable malfunction, as defined in 21 CFR 803.3. However, your firm failed to submit MDRs for each of the referenced complaints.
The adequacy of your firm’s responses dated April 16, 2024, and May 15, 2024, cannot be determined at this time. In the response dated April 16, 2024, your firm states that you are conducting a retrospective review of complaints received from 2019 to the present, including both US and non-US products, using your updated MDR procedure. However, your firm has not provided documentation or evidence indicating the completeness of the planned corrective actions, as they are still ongoing. The response dated May 15, 2024, did not include any information.
•
In addition, FDA discovered during its inspection that once the outer packaging of these devices is removed the only remaining labeling on the syringe barrel is “Monoject.” FDA is aware of at least one example from complaint 20230705, received by your firm on July 27, 2023, which stated that “Once the package is open the staff cannot tell them apart because Covidien and Cardinal Health is not written on the syringe to identify it.” and “BD and Monoject syringes are the only ones approved for the OR due to compatibility with Anesthesia syringe pumps.” FDA does not have any information to date from your firm regarding whether the sole use of term “Monoject” printed directly on these devices reduces the probability that these devices will be used in infusion pumps, given that healthcare professionals who are trained to use syringe infusion pumps may recognize that “Monoject” syringes are listed in the compatible syringe libraries of most infusion pumps and may not be able to distinguish between what “Monoject” syringes are appropriate for use with a particular type of infusion pump when no other differentiating information is provided.
Given the serious nature of the violations of the Act, sterile and non-sterile syringes 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 has taken steps to refuse entry of these devices into the United States, known as “detention without physical examination,” until these violations are addressed. In order to remove the devices from detention, your firm should provide a written response to this Warning Letter as described below and address the violation(s) described in this letter. We will notify you regarding the adequacy of your firm’s response(s) and the need to re-inspect your firm’s facility to verify that the appropriate corrections and/or corrective actions have been made.
Other federal agencies may take your compliance with the FD&C Act and its implementing regulations into account when considering the award of federal contracts. Additionally, should FDA determine that you have Quality System regulation violations that are reasonably related to premarket approval applications for Class III devices, such devices will not be approved until the violations have been addressed.
Please notify this office in writing within fifteen business days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps your firm has taken to address the noted violations, including an explanation of how your firm plans to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again. Include documentation of the corrections and/or corrective action (which must address systemic problems) that your firm has taken. If your firm’s planned corrections and/or corrective actions will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of those activities. If corrections and/or corrective actions cannot be completed within fifteen business days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which these activities will be completed. Please provide a translation of documentation not in English to facilitate our review. We will notify you regarding the adequacy of your firm’s response(s) and the need to re-inspect your firm’s facility to verify that the appropriate corrections and/or corrective actions have been made. If you believe that your products are not in violation of the FD&C Act, include your reasoning and any supporting information for our consideration as part of your response.
Your firm’s response should be sent via email to CDRHWarningLetterResponses@fda.hhs.gov or by mail to Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Office of Regulatory Programs, Division of Regulatory Programs 2, FDA Regulatory Inspections and Audits Team, White Oak Building 66, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993.
Refer to CMS case #687033 when replying
. If you have any questions about the contents of this letter, please contact: Shruti Mistry at Shruti.Mistry@fda.hhs.gov.
Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your firm’s facility. It is your firm’s responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, FDA 483, issued at the close of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm’s manufacturing and quality management systems. Your firm should investigate and determine the causes of any violations and take prompt actions to address any violations and bring the products into compliance.
Sincerely yours,
/S/
Kellie B. Kelm, Ph.D.
Acting Director
OHT 3: Office of GastroRenal, ObGyn,
General Hospital and Urology Devices
Office of Product Evaluation and Quality
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
CC:
Official correspondent:
Jun Lu at jun.lu@cainamed.com
US AGENT:
Marco Mu
Mid-Link International Co., Ltd,
2219 Rimlang Drive
Suite 301
Bellingham, WA US 98226
Email: us.agent@mid-link.net
Phone: (702) 209-5185
Content current as of:
07/18/2024
Regulated Product(s)
Medical Devices