We use cookies to provide you with a better experience. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.
  • SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Drug Products
    • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Events
    • Form 483s Database
    • Subscription Newsletters
    • Free Newsletters
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • Device Products
    • Books
    • FDAnews Books Library
    • Events
    • Form 483s Database
    • Subscription Newsletters
    • Free Newsletters
    • Webinar Training Pass
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • Clinical Products
  • Advertising
  • White Papers
  • Contact Us
  • About Us
  • COVID-19
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FOR DEVICES COULD PUT MANUFACTURERS AT A DISADVANTAGE

UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FOR DEVICES COULD PUT MANUFACTURERS AT A DISADVANTAGE

June 5, 2006

Encoding unique device identification (UDI) on devices would likely benefit all device stakeholders, except manufacturers, concludes a recent report conducted by Eastern Research Group (ERG) for the FDA. For that reason, the FDA and other government agencies would need to coordinate the effort for it to become a reality.

In 2004, the FDA mandated bar code identifiers on pharmaceutical labeling to reduce medical errors and improve drug safety. At that time, the agency asked industry for feedback about whether that practice should be extended to devices. The agency hesitated to issue a similar standard for devices because they lack identifying systems comparable to the National Drug Code (NDC) system used to identify drugs. The NDC was instituted in the 1970s by the FDA and identifies the labeler, product and package.

Most devicemakers are small companies with fewer than 20 employees and fill small niche markets, according to a 2002 census report that listed 5,394 device manufacturers. The industry is also quite diverse, with devices ranging from expensive capital equipment such as X-ray machines to simple items such as bandages and tongue depressors, according to the report. Because of this diversity and the evolving nature of devices, classification other than by risk category has not been forthcoming.

Both AdvaMed and the Medical Device Manufacturers Association oppose mandatory barcodes or automatic identification systems "because of the enormous diversity of medical devices and associated safety needs," the report says. AdvaMed also noted in its comments to the FDA that the agency already requires traceability for devices that carry the most risk. The group also said that manufacturers are evolving toward enhanced device identification systems at the pace set by their customers' needs.

Distributors are generally supportive of efforts to implement device identification but they also opposed mandatory labeling requirements, according to the report.

For UDI to be successful, collaboration from all industry stakeholders would be necessary, ERG said. Right now, this is unlikely to happen because of the possible competitive disadvantages to manufacturers, it concluded.

(http://www.fdanews.com/ddl/33_23/)

KEYWORDS FDAnews Device Daily Bulletin

Upcoming Events

  • 21Jan

    Virtual MDSAP Audits in the Era of COVID-19: What to Know and Do to Pass Virtual Audits

  • 26Jan

    Reducing Complexity in Starting Clinical Trials – More Patients, Faster Startup

  • 27Jan

    Medical Device Clinical Trials in China: Latest Regulatory Developments

  • 27Jan

    FDA’s Response to COVID-19: Fundamentals of Obtaining Emergency Use Authorizations

  • 09Feb

    Maintaining Your Risk-Based Cleaning and Disinfectant Programs: Best Practices During COVID-19

  • 10Feb

    FDA Under the Biden Administration: What’s to Come and What It Will Mean

Featured Products

  • Biological Risk Evaluation and Management for Medical Devices

  • GMP Inspection Preparation Checklist: A Tool for Internal Auditing

Featured Stories

  • COVID-19  Clinical Trial

    Synairgen Initiates Dosing in Late-Stage Trial of Inhaled COVID-19 Therapy

  • Verona Pharma logo

    Verona Pharma Ends Enrollment in Inhaler-Administered COVID-19 Drug Pilot

  • Purple_Approved_Stamp.gif

    Seno Medical Gets Premarket Approval for Breast Cancer Diagnostic

  • Triple Vaccine, needles

    Moderna to Start New Trial Adding Third Shot of COVID-19 Vaccine

The Revised ICH E8: A Guide to New Clinical Trial Requirements

Learn More
  • Drug Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • GMPs
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Device Products
    • Quality
    • Regulatory Affairs
    • QSR
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Postmarket Safety
    • Submissions and Approvals
    • Research and Development
    • Commercial Operations
  • Clinical Products
    • Trial Design
    • Data Integrity
    • GCP
    • Inspections and Audits
    • Transparency
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 703.538.7600 – Fax 703.538.7676 – Toll free 888.838.5578

Copyright © 2021. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing