| Public Health Service Food and Drug Administration |
Seattle District |
Department of Health and Human ServicesMarch 28, 2011
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
In reply refer to Warning Letter SEA 11-07 - Amended
Mr. Kevin P. Maguire
General Manager
Philips Medical Systems
2301 5th Avenue, Suite 200
Seattle, Washington 98121
AMENDED WARNING LETTER
Dear Mr. Maguire:
We are amending our Warning Letter of March 22, 2011, to correct typographical errors, including three errors with device names, and are re-issuing the letter with a March 28, 2011, date. Your expected date of response is now extended to fifteen working days from your receipt of this letter.
During an inspection of your firm located in Seattle, Washington, April 5, 2010, through August 9, 2010, investigators from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures the HeartStart, FRx, FR2+, and HS1 lines of Automated External Defibrillators (AED). 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 are intended to affect the structure or 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 (CGMP) requirements of the Quality System (QS) regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820. We received responses from Daniel Donnelly Director, Quality and Regulatory Affairs, dated August 30, 2010, and October 21, 2010, concerning our investigators’ observations noted on the Form FDA 483, List of Inspectional Observations, that was issued to you. We address these responses below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to adequately verify or validate that the corrective and preventive action is effective and does not adversely affect the finished device, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(4). For example, there have been 87 complaints received since January 2008 including one death (Complaint C08-005865 received August 13, 2008) for magnets detached or missing from the handle of HS1 AED Pads Cartridges. Four CAPAs have been opened for this issue including 06032, opened January 7, 2003; 06050, opened March 31, 2003; 06164 opened November 21, 2003; and CMS00604A opened October 14, 2008. Two design changes to address the detached or missing magnets were documented under DCRA 3794, signed December 7, 2004, and DCRA 6744, signed September 16, 2009. In DCRA 3794 and 6744, design changes were approved, but no validation or verification activity evaluating the effectiveness of the corrective action was performed or documented.
We have reviewed your responses and have concluded that they are inadequate because they do not address the quality system observation indicating that no evaluation of the effectiveness of the corrective action was performed or documented. While your firm indicated that the CAPA you initiated concluded that no patient harm was likely, there are documented complaints and additional CAPAs indicating that the original corrective actions were not effective and that the required validation or verification for the corrective actions was not performed.
2. Failure to adequately implement changes in methods and procedures needed to correct and prevent identified quality problems, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a)(5). For example, complaint C09-006790 received on August 4, 2009, involved a death due to failure of an FR2 AED to operate during an attempted rescue. The FR2 AED had previously failed self-tests five times which were cleared by the customer with Battery Insertion Tests (BIT). CAPA CMS-00882A, dated October 22, 2009, was opened to address the failure of the FR2 AED labeling to instruct users to contact Philips for service following self-test failures cleared with a BIT. As of August 9, 2010, no corrective actions had been conducted.
We have reviewed your responses and have concluded that they are inadequate because your firm indicated that it has implemented two process related changes to limit this type of event; (1) the Customer Service process will be changed to require customer service to inquire about and examine the device history at the time of a call, and (2) the Complaint Investigation process will be changed to encourage the investigator to consider the service history of the device, particularly when dealing with an intermittent or difficult to recreate problem. The process changes can not be adequately assessed at this time, because your firm has not provided any evidence of implementation of these changes. Your firm has also indicated that they are evaluating changes to the Instructions For Use that would cause users to respond more consistently to repeat self test warnings. Your firm detailed in your August 30, 2010, response that the decision on the evaluation would be reported in the next response update, but no additional information was provided in the October 21, 2010, response.
3. Failure to perform adequate design validation in order to ensure that the device conforms to user needs and intended uses, as required by 21 CFR 820.30(g). For example, the investigators noted three separate instances where field complaints resulted due to failures in components due to moisture ingress in high humidity environments. Specifically, the (b)(4) Real Time Clock Integrated Circuit (CAPA 06287); the High Voltage (HV) capacitor; and the (b)(4) resistors (CAPA 06356) had 16, 42, and 325 complaints, respectively, due to humidity failure. The protocol, H99027- Operating Temperature and Humidity & Transportation/Shipping, which detailed the device humidity qualification, was conducted at (b)(4)% RH while the unit is rated for operating specifications of 95% RH and 75% RH for standby operation.
We have reviewed your responses and have concluded that they are inadequate because your firm has not addressed the issue of whether the correct operating conditions for these units were identified and if the final device validation activities were adequate for the intended use environment. No information was provided to indicate how testing performed on the final units provided an adequate representation or an accelerated modeling of the units “real world” operating conditions.
4. Failure to validate an automated data processing system used as part of the quality system, as required by 21 CFR 820.70(i).
For example:
a. The CPRPlus database used from 2006 to the present to track AEDs and conduct audits of tracked AEDs was not validated.
b. The Customer Issues and Complaint Handling Database (CIA) used to record customer issues, store complaint data, and trend and report quality data allows entry of Class "0" complaints although a complaint classification of "0" is not defined in the Customer Field Issues and Product Return System SOP, P01046.
We have reviewed your responses and have concluded that they are inadequate because your firm has indicated in your responses that you have taken inventory of all tools and are in the process of determining which tools would be in continued use and which tools would be retired. The responses provided to date do not address corrective actions for the lack of validation of the CPRPlus database. The responses provided to date also do not address the deficiencies observed with the Customer Issues and Complaint Handling Database or discuss any additional corrective actions your firm plans to take to address this issue.
5. Failure to adequately document corrective and preventive actions and their results, as required by 21 CFR 820.100(b).
For example:
a. Compliance Conclusions were not documented per SOP P04012, Rev. E, Health Hazard Evaluation Process, on Form 0114 Rev C for CAPA 06287 or CAPA 06374, which were signed and closed on August 15, 2008, and February 17, 2010, respectively.
b. Compliance Conclusions were not documented per SOP P04012, Rev. F, Health Hazard Evaluation Process, effective October 30, 2009, on Form 114 Rev C, dated February 17, 2010, CAPA Investigation and Health Hazard Evaluation, for CAPA 06374.
c. Form 0121, Initial Post Market Risk Analysis and CAPA Determination, is required per SOP P010604, Product Issue Investigation, Rev. D. As of August 9, 2010, Form 0121 was not documented for investigations CMS-00914A (dated December 9, 2009), CMS-00908A (dated December 8, 2009), CMS-00920A (dated December 8, 2009), and CMS-00923A (dated January 11, 2010).
We have reviewed your responses and have concluded that they are inadequate because your firm has indicated in your responses that the systems inspected, including the CAPA system, were difficult to follow and overly complex. A Quality System remediation program has been established and the CAPA system is under review with a schedule for implementing the revised CAPA system prior to October 29, 2010. The response dated October 21, 2010, indicates and provides documentation regarding several CAPA procedure changes, but there is no indication as to how those changes will prevent the recurrence of the deficiencies observed.
6. Failure to adequately ensure that complaints are processed and evaluated in a timely manner, as well as evaluated to determine whether the complaint represents an event which is required to be reported to FDA under Part 803, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(a). For example, the SMART CPR Study initiated at the (b)(4), indicated in the protocol signed on August 1, 2007, that P01046, Complaint and Service Return and Product Return System, was to be followed for any Serious Occurrence Reports or issues that occurred during the study. Serious Occurrence Reports were filed with Philips Medical Systems including Complaints C09-006562, C09-006571, and C09-006575 which were not entered into the complaint handling system until over a year after the customer issues were received. Additionally, these complaints were not evaluated for MDR reportability.
Your response to this observation appears to be adequate.
7. Failure to adequately ensure that when an investigation into a complaint is made, the record of the investigation shall include any device identification and control numbers used, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(e)(3).
For example:
a) Complaint C09-007219, received December 18, 2009, documented a complaint that the battery did not fit into an HS1 AED and the device was running self-tests each time it was bumped. The battery lot number was not included in the information collected for the investigation.
b) Complaint C10-007296, received January 13, 2010, documented a complaint of a death associated with an FR2 AED failing to shock pulseless ventricular tachycardia. The serial number for the FR2 AED was not in the information collected for the investigation.
c) Complaint C10-007455, received March 12, 2010, documented a complaint that an FR2 AED failed to shock pulseless ventricular tachycardia. The serial number for the FR2 AED was not in the information collected for the investigation.
d) Support ID 40514, received on October 31, 2008, was documented as complaint C10-007744 for an HS1 AED pads cartridge that failed out-of-pouch due to either a missing magnet or poor connection. The lot code for the pads cartridge and the serial number of the HS1 AED were not in the information collected for the investigation.
Your response to this observation appears to be adequate.
Our inspection also revealed that your 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) regulation. Significant deviations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to report to the FDA no later than 30 calendar days after the day you became aware of information that reasonably suggests that your device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury, as required by 21 CFR 803.50(a)(1). For example, the following MDRs were submitted to the FDA later than 30 days after the day you became aware of information that reasonably suggests that your device may have caused or contributed to a patient’s death:
• MDR 3030677-2010-00050 for Complaint C10-007327;
• MDR 3030677-2009-0008 for Complaint C08-006146;
• MDR 3030677-2009-0010 for Complaint C09-006315;
• MDR 3030677-2009-00033 for Complaint C09-006575;
• MDR 3030677-2009-00030 for Complaint C09-006571;
• MDR 3030677-2009-00021 for Complaint C09-006562; and
• MDR 3030677-2009-00016 for Complaint C09-006555.
2. Failure to properly identify, in Block H1 of the FDA Form 3500A, the type of reportable event, as required by 21 CFR 803.52(f)(1). For example, the following MDRs indicate “Other” as the type of reportable event when they should have indicated “Death”.
• MDR 3030677-2010-00003 for Complaint C08-005774;
• MDR 3030677-2009-00087 for Complaint C08-005610;
• MDR 3030677-2009-0049 for Complaint C09-006875;
• MDR 3030677-2009-00016 for Complaint C09-006555;
• MDR 3030677-2009-00021 for Complaint C09-006562;
• MDR 3030677-2009-00033 for Complaint C09-00675; and
• MDR 3030677-2009-00030 for Complaint C09-006571.
3. Failure to have an adequate MDR procedure establishing internal systems that provide for timely and effective identification, communication, and evaluation of events that may be subject to MDR requirements, a standardized review process or procedure for determining when an event meets the criteria for reporting, and timely transmission of complete medical device reports to us, as required by 21 CFR 803.17(a). For example, Section 3.1 of your procedure defines “becomes aware.” Your definition of becoming aware is limited to managers, supervisors, or employees whose duties relate to collection and reporting of adverse events. This can lead to under reporting and/or late reporting of MDR reportable events. Please revise your definition of “becomes aware” to be consistent with 21 CFR 803.3.
You should also clarify in your procedure that, regardless of whether or not the device was in use at the time of the event, the aware date is the date when any employee acquires information that reasonably suggests that a reportable adverse event has occurred.
Additionally, the inspection revealed that your AED devices are misbranded within the meaning of 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(e) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360e and 21 CFR Part 821 – Medical Device Tracking Requirements. Significant deviations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for the collection, maintenance, and auditing of the data indicated for tracked devices, as required by 21 CFR 821.25(c). For example, the CPRPlus database used for collection, maintenance and auditing of device tracking information does not have an established operating procedure.
Your response to this observation appears to be adequate.
2. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for recording when data, which is required under 21 CFR 821.25, is missing and could not be collected and the reason why such required data is missing and could not be collected, as required by 21 CFR 821.25(c)(1). For example, the Device Tracking Procedure SOP P01054, Rev. K, effective July 28, 2006, does not require an explanation of why device tracking information is missing.
Your response to this observation appears to be adequate.
3. Failure to establish and maintain adequate procedures for a quality assurance program that includes an audit procedure to be run for each device product subject to tracking, at not less than 6-month intervals for the first 3 years of distribution and at least once a year thereafter. This audit procedure shall provide for statistically relevant sampling of the data collected to ensure the accuracy of data and performance testing of the functioning of the tracking system as required by 21 CFR 821.25(c)(3).
For example:
a. Device Tracking audits were not conducted at least yearly. The last tracking audit was conducted in March 2009 and a device tracking audit was not conducted between August 2007 and December 2008.
b. The sampling plan for the 2009 Device Tracking Audit conducted December 2008 through March 2009 was not representative of distributed AEDs. The audited AEDs were sampled from Complaint/Service returns over a three year time span (2006, 2007, and 2008) rather than from all AEDs in distribution. No rationale was provided as to why the 3 year sampling was a statistically relevant representation of the tracking system.
Your response to this observation appears to be adequate.
A follow up inspection will be required to assure that corrections are adequate. We will contact you to arrange a mutually convenient establishment re-inspection.
You 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 Food and Drug Administration without further notice. These actions include, but are not limited to, seizure, injunction, and/or civil money penalties. Also, federal agencies are advised of the issuance of all 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 QS regulation deviations 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. 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 - Please submit by September 22, 2011.
Please notify this office in writing within fifteen (15) working days from the date you receive this letter of the specific steps you have taken to correct the noted violations, including an explanation of how you plan to prevent these violations, or similar violations, from occurring again. Include documentation of the corrective action you have taken. If your planned corrections will occur over time, please include a timetable for implementation of those corrections. If corrective action cannot be completed within 15 working days, state the reason for the delay and the time within which the corrections will be completed.
Your response should be sent to Lisa M. Althar, Compliance Officer, Food and Drug Administration, 22201 23rd Drive Southeast, Bothell, Washington 98021. If you have any questions about the content of this letter please contact Ms. Althar at (425) 483-4940.
Finally, you should know that this letter is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of the violations at your facility. It is your responsibility to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations administered by the FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Form FDA 483, List of Inspectional Observations, issued at the closeout of the inspection may be symptomatic of serious problems in your firm’s manufacturing and quality assurance systems. You should investigate and determine the causes of the violations, and take prompt actions to correct the violations and to bring your products into compliance.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Charles M. Breen
District Director
No comments:
Post a Comment