WARNING LETTER
Circulatory Technology, Inc.
MARCS-CMS 572970 —
January 28, 2019
Product:
Medical Devices
Recipient:
Recipient Name
Yehuda Tamari
Recipient Title
President
Circulatory Technology, Inc.
21 Singworth Street
Oyster Bay
,
NY
11771-3703
United States
Issuing Office:
New England District Office
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring
,
MD
20993-0002
United States
WARNING LETTER
CMS # 572970
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
OVERNIGHT DELIVERY
January 28, 2019
Yehuda Tamari
President
Circulatory Technology, Inc.
21 Singworth Street
Oyster Bay, NY 11771-3703
Dear Mr. Tamari:
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an inspection of your firm’s medical device operations at 21 Singworth Street, Oyster Bay, NY, from August 22, 2018 to September 26, 2018. During the inspection, an FDA investigator determined that your firm is a specification developer of the Better Bladder and the Bigger Better Bladder medical 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 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 your response dated October 22, 2018, concerning our investigator’s observations noted on the Form FDA 483, List of Inspectional Observations (FDA 483) that was issued on September 26, 2018. We address the response below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to perform and document revalidation activities when changes or process deviations occur in the manufacturing operations, as required by 21 CFR 820.75(c). In February 2018, your firm initiated a change to your manufacturing process at your contract manufacturer for the Better Bladder family of products. Specifically, you added an additional step to “
(b)(4)
.” You did not perform a revalidation of this process to ensure it did not adversely affect the device.
We have reviewed your firm’s response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your response states that the process is verifiable by a non-destructive leak test performed for each unit and that this test is sufficient to make revalidation unnecessary. Please be aware that a leak test only tests for leaks; it does not ensure that the additional assembly step did not adversely affect the device in other ways. In addition, your response states that there have been no complaints about the product since the process change, and that this shows that the change was successful. However, a lack of complaints is not a substitute for revalidation. In response to this Warning Letter, you should provide evidence that the process change has been validated successfully.
2. Failure to establish and maintain procedures to control the design of the device to ensure that specified design requirements are met, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(a). During the inspection we observed that your firm did not review the recent change to the manufacture of your device as part of your design control procedures. (See February 2018 change described above). Note that your firm needs to ensure that the design requirements relating to your devices are appropriate and address the intended use of the device, including the needs of the user and patient. The design control requirements described in 21 CFR 820.30 discuss the need to conduct design reviews as well as maintain design history files that contain or reference all the records necessary to demonstrate that the design was developed in accordance with an approved design plan. These design deficiencies were recently discussed during a regulatory meeting held with our office on November 2017.
We have reviewed your firm’s response and conclude that it is not adequate. You state that the additional process step is not considered a design change, so no design documents were revised. Please note that the purpose and methodology for design validation are different from process validation. In response to this Warning Letter, you should provide documentation to demonstrate that the design of all currently marketed devices has been developed in accordance with an approved design plan and meet all the requirements of 21 CFR Part 820.30.
3. Failure to evaluate complaints to determine whether the complaint represents an event which is required to be reported to FDA under part 803 of this chapter, Medical Device Reporting, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(a)(3). Your firm received at least
(b)(4)
complaints that alleged your device failed while being used during patient procedures. These complaint records did not contain sufficient information to determine whether these events were reportable events.
Your response did not address this violation. In response to this Warning Letter, you should describe the specific steps you are taking to ensure all future complaint records include all required information under 21 CFR 820.198.
4. Failure to document all required corrective and preventive actions, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(b). During the inspection, we observed at least 4 CAPA’s that were opened to address complaints of leaks and / or detached pigtail tubing observed with your devices; see CAPA
(b)(4)
dated 8/23/17, CAPA
(b)(4)
dated 9/18/17, CAPA
(b)(4)
dated 10.6.17 and CAPA
(b)(4)
dated 1/31/18. A review of these CAPA’s revealed that they were not complete and did not always reference subsequent complaints that had already been reported for similar failures.
The purpose of a CAPA system is to collect and analyze information, identify and investigate existing and potential product and quality problems, and take appropriate, effective, and comprehensive corrective and preventive action to prevent the recurrence of problems. Properly documenting these activities is essential in dealing effectively with product and quality problems, preventing their recurrence, and preventing or minimizing device failures. Moreover, it is critical that failure investigations and actions be handled in a timely and effective manner. Protracted handling of issues related to product complaints, recalls, and other quality indicators exacerbates the effect of the problem in clinical situations.
We have reviewed your firm’s response and conclude that it is not adequate. In response to this Warning Letter, you should provide evidence that an effective and sustainable CAPA system will be in operation at your firm.
Your firm should take prompt action to correct the violations addressed in this letter. Failure to promptly correct these violations may result in regulatory action being initiated by the FDA without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and civil money penalties. Also, federal agencies may be advised of the issuance of Warning Letters about devices so that they may take this
information into account when considering the award of contracts. Additionally, premarket approval applications for Class III devices to which the Quality System regulation violations are reasonably related will not be approved until the violations have been corrected. Requests for Certificates to Foreign Governments will not be granted until the violations related to the subject devices have been corrected.
We are requesting that you submit to this office on the schedule below, certification by an outside expert consultant that he/she has conducted an audit of your establishment's manufacturing and quality assurance systems relative to the requirements of the device QS regulation (21 CFR, Part 820). You should also submit a copy of the consultant's report, and certification by your establishment's Chief Executive Officer (if other than yourself) that he or she has reviewed the consultant's report and that your establishment has initiated or completed all corrections called for in the report. The initial certifications of audit and corrections and subsequent certifications of updated audits and corrections (if required) should be submitted to this office by the following dates:
• Initial certifications by consultant and establishment –
July 29, 2019
• Subsequent certifications –
July 29, 2020
and
July 29, 2021
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 correct the noted violations, as well as 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 actions (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. Your firm’s response should be comprehensive and address all violations included in this Warning Letter.
If you have questions regarding any issues in this letter, please contact Compliance Officer, Amy Cramer at 732-390-3822 or at Amy.Cramer@fda.hhs.gov. Please send your reply electronically to Gina Brackett Director of Compliance Branch, at gina.brackett@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 the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations and bring the products into compliance.
Sincerely,
/S/
Joseph Matrisciano, Jr.
Program Division Director
Office of Medical Device and Radiological Health
Division
Content current as of:
02/12/2019
Regulated Product(s)
Medical Devices