|Company:||Synthes USA HQ, Inc.|
|Issuer:||Philadelphia District Office|
|Issued:||Feb. 16, 2012||Closed:||
Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration
900 U.S. Customhouse
2nd and Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
February 16, 2012
President and CEO
Synthes USA HQ, Inc.
1302 Wrights Lane East
West Chester, PA 19380-3417
Dear Mr. Orsinger:
During an inspection of your firm located in West Chester, Pennsylvania, on June 22, 2011, through September 15, 2011, an investigator from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that your firm manufactures Click'X 3-D Polyaxial Heads, Click'X 3-D Pedicle Screws, and N-Hance Rods. 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 they 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 requirements of the Quality System (QS) regulation found at Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 820. We received a response from Kenneth Geskes, Global Director, Corporate Regulatory Compliance, dated September 29, 2011, concerning our investigator's observations noted on the Form FDA 483, List of Inspectional Observations, that was issued to your firm. We address this response below, in relation to each of the noted violations. These violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for implementing corrective and preventive actions (CAPA), as required by 21 CFR 820.100(a).
For example, CAPA # (b)(4) was initiated to investigate a US-based complaint that was received on March 12, 2010, for increased force required by the surgeon to seat Click'X 3-D Heads onto Click'X pedicle screw heads. On May 4, 2010, your firm began rework on the Click'X 3-D and Click' X pedicle screws held in inventory at your Monument, Colorado, distribution center as a result of this investigation. However, this CAPA did not include lots of the Click'X 3-D Heads that were distributed to Synthes sales consultants or to Synthes customers. The lots of Click'X 3-D Heads omitted from this corrective action (i.e., lots (b)(4) and (b)(4) were the subject of complaints received on May 12, 2010, for the issue of the heads not attaching to pedicle screws during a surgical procedure conducted on April 28, 2010.
Your firm's response to this observation appears to be adequate.
2. Failure to establish and maintain procedures for acceptance of incoming product, as required by 21 CFR 820.80(b). For example, a review of the Device History Records for N-Fix II complaint lots, during a for-cause audit of (b)(4) contract manufacturer of the N-Fix II rods, on October 21-22, 2008, revealed that there was a failure to disposition product that did not meet specifications as non-conforming. This product was released to commercial distribution without review. These findings, in part, lead to a November 7, 2008, recall of all lots manufactured from September 28, 2006, to the date of the recall.
We have reviewed your firm's response and have concluded that it is inadequate. Your firm provided neither a correction that addresses the release of non-conforming product into commercial production nor a discussion of how your firm intends to ensure that all purchased product and services conform to specified requirements.
3. 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). For example:
a. Procedure W-M-S028, (b)(4) (Revisions Q and R), requires the firm's Complaint Handling Unit to review the Complaint Database at the (b)(4) each month to assure that all complaint investigations are completed in a "timely manner." However, a review of Click'X 3-D Heads and N-Hance Rods complaints revealed that the following complaints were not promptly reviewed, evaluated, or investigated by a designated individual: (b)(4) Additionally, the term "timely manner" is not defined in the (b)(4) procedure.
b. Procedure W-M-S028, (b)(4) (Revisions Q and R), requires additional attempts for Medical Device Reporting files if information specified in the product questionnaires is not obtained. However, this procedure does not identify how further attempts are to be accomplished and at what frequency they are to be made by the Complaint Handling Unit. Additionally, a review of the following complaints showed no documented follow-up beyond submission of the questionnaires to the surgeon to obtain the missing device lot number: (b)(4)
c. Procedure W-M-S028, (b)(4) requires a good-faith effort to obtain all information necessary to evaluate and investigate a complaint. Additionally, there is a requirement that, at a minimum, the Complaint Handling Unit must make an initial attempt plus (b)(4) additional attempts for information unless the complainant has reported that no additional information is available. However, this procedure does not specify a time period at which follow-up attempts are to be made. The following complaints were found to either not have a documented follow-up or untimely follow-up attempts for missing information: (b)(4)
d. Procedure W-M-S003, (b)(4) requires all Synthes employees who receive any complaint or adverse event information to "immediately communicate" such information to the Complaint Handling Unit. However, a review of Click'X 3-D Head and N-Fix II/N-Hance Rod complaints showed that the Complaint Handling Unit did not always immediately receive the complaint or adverse event information for the following complaints: (b)(4) For these complaints, the time from the date of the event to the date the event was recorded varied from (b)(4) to over (b)(4) .
We reviewed your firm's response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your firm did not provide evidence that its correction and corrective actions have been implemented. For complaint (b)(4) , your firm stated that (b)(4) attempts for additional information were made and the file was closed. Your firm did not provide any evidence of the (b)(4) attempt. Your firm planned to re-open file (b)(4) to make attempts for additional information. Your firm stated that the surgeon called with the information for complaint (b)(4) on June 12, 2009. The Complaint Handling Unit concluded that the surgeon provided all of the information on the complaint at the time of the conversation; therefore, no additional attempts were made. File (b)(4) is a European-based complaint and the follow-up was not conducted by the US Complaint Handling Unit. Your firm intended to update the Product Complaint Coordination procedure to include the deviation that no additional requests for information shall be made for European or Canadian complaint files as those organizations follow their own procedures for obtaining information and provide all information to the Complaint Handling Unit as it is reported to them. Furthermore, your firm stated that it conducted a (b)(4) year retrospective review of all European, Clinical, and Market Preference Evaluation files to ensure that all relevant complaint information was communicated to the Complaint Handling Unit. Your firm did not provide any results of or evidence that this review was conducted.
4. Failure to maintain a record of the investigation of a complaint by the formally designated unit identified in 21 CFR 820.198(a), including: 1) the name of the device; 2) the date the complaint was received; 3) any device identification and control number used; 4) the name, address, and phone number of the complainant; 5) the nature and details of the complaint; 6) the dates and results of the investigation; 7) any corrective action taken; and 8) any reply to the complainant, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(e). For example, N-Fix II complaint files (b)(4) do not contain the associated (b)(4) Report (dated April 11, 2008). This document contains information from an analysis of (b)(4) review conducted by an unknown investigator on an unknown date. Additionally, these (b)(4) reviews were not controlled or coordinated by the Complaint Handling Unit, per procedure W-M-S028, (b)(4) Revision Q. On March 28, 2008, the Complaint Handing Unit issued requests for a (b)(4) review; however, these complaint investigation documents were missing from the complaint files. During this inspection, the missing complaint investigation documents were recovered from a file located at the Synthes-N-Spine facility in San Diego, California. However, the complaint investigation documents were only partially completed.
We reviewed your firm's response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your firm did not provide evidence of the implementation of its corrective actions.
5. Failure to promptly review, evaluate, and investigate any complaint that represents an event which must be reported to FDA under 21 CFR 803 by a designated individual, as required by 21 CFR 820.198(d). For example:
a. A review of N-Fix II/N-Hance Rod MDR-reportable complaints revealed that the following Product Complaint Reports were either closed prior to the completion of Complaint Handling Unit-issued complaint investigations (e.g., (b)(4) reviews) or resolution of open issues were not followed-up by the Complaint Handling Unit Investigator in a timely manner: (b)(4) Some of these complaints were never followed-up on, while the time from the date of event to the date your firm did follow-up varied from (b)(4) to over (b)(4)
b. Procedure W-M-S028 (b)(4) lists (b)(4) actions to be conducted at a minimum as investigation requirements for MDR complaints, of which the first action is to conduct a (b)(4) review in order to determine whether the device failed to meet specifications. A review of 48 Product Complaint Reports revealed that there was no timely documented DHR review for the following MDR-reportable complaints: (b)(4)
c. Procedure W-M-S026, (b)(4) Revision K, identifies the Quality Supervisor or designate as responsible for review of complaint evaluations for completeness and accuracy. However, a review of N-Fix II/N-Hance MDR-reportable complaint files revealed that the Quality Supervisor or designate did not always document, by means of dated signature, their review of the manufacturing complaint investigations or they did not review the manufacturing complaint investigation in a timely manner. For example:
i. A review of complaint (b)(4) showed that a Complaint Investigation was issued for a (b)(4) review on January 16, 2009. A (b)(4) review was conducted on January 26, 2009. A (b)(4) review was conducted on January 26, 2009. However, there was no documented review of the manufacturing complaint investigation by the Quality Supervisor or designate. The Product Complaint Report for this complaint was closed on February 25, 2009, with no documented investigation into the incomplete complaint investigation.
ii. A review of complaints (b)(4) showed that an initial Complaint Investigation(Non-Manufacturing) was completed and signed on May 19, 2010. However, there was no documented review by Corporate QA. A duplicate complaint investigation form was completed with signatures dated August 2010, by the investigator and by Corporate QA. Furthermore, the complaint files do not contain documented justification on why the May 2010, complaint investigation forms were not used by the Complaint Handling Unit for these (b)(4) complaint investigations.
We reviewed your firm's response and conclude that it is not adequate. Your firm did not provide evidence to support the implementation of its corrections and corrective actions. Your firm stated that it has implemented a new validated electronic complaint handling system where complaints cannot be closed until all requirements have been completed. This complaint handling system would also include due dates for all investigation requirements including manufacturing, product development, and additional information requests. Your firm stated that these requests will show up on the assigned individuals "hot list." Your firm did not discuss how the new complaint handling system will generate and populate these due dates, and how and at what frequency follow-up will occur for the "hot list."
Additionally, your firm provided a draft copy of its revised (b)(4) procedure, W-M-S028. Your firm stated that this procedure would be updated to include a time requirement for the completion of (b)(4) reviews. However, your firm did not provide evidence that the updated Product Complaint Coordination procedure has been approved and implemented.
Our inspection also revealed that your firm's 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. Significant violations include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Failure to 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 it 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:
a. Your firm submitted MDR number (b)(4) for complaint number (b)(4) Your firm was aware of this event on July 1, 2009. FDA received the report on July 14, 2011.
b. Your firm submitted MDR number (b)(4) for complaint number (b)(4) . Your firm was aware of this event on June 4, 2008. FDA received the report on September 12, 2008.
c. Your firm submitted MDR (b)(4) number complaint number (b)(4) . Your firm was aware of this event on August 27, 2009. FDA received the report on March 19, 2010.
d. Your firm submitted MDR number (b)(4) for complaint number (b)(4) . Your firm was aware of this event on August 27, 2009. FDA received the report on March 19, 2010.
e. Your firm submitted MDR number (b)(4) for complaint number (b)(4) . Your firm was aware of this event on May 18, 2010. FDA received the report on August 13, 2010.
2. Failure to submit supplemental information to FDA within 1 month of the day following receipt of information that was not provided when the initial report was submitted as required by 21 CFR 803.56. For example:
a. Complaint number (b)(4) reported as MDR number (b)(4) describes a patient that had surgery to remove N-Hance Rods (lot and part number unknown) following increasing leg and back pain. The surgeon's post-operative notes indicate a hardware failure and a broken rod. The event was received by FDA as a 30-day initial report on December 17, 2009. Your firm received the device for analysis on or about January 21, 2010; however, follow-up report 001 was not received by FDA until April 29, 2010.
b. Complaint numbers (b)(4) reported as MDR numbers (b)(4) respectively, describe patients who underwent revision surgery to replace N-Hance Rods after being advised in October 2010 that the hardware "had defaulted or fell apart." The events were received by FDA as 30-day initial reports on April 14, 2011. Your firm received follow-up information from the patient on June 10, 2011; however follow-up report 001 for both MDRs was not received until September 23, 2011.
3. Failure to submit all information that is reasonably known to you, as required by 21 CFR 803.50(b)(1). For example:
a. Complaint number (b)(4) reported as MDR (b)(4) contained a (b)(4) page (b)(4) Report with the device failure findings dated October 22, 2008. Your firm submitted three follow-up reports for this initial report. However, your firm did not report the results of the (b)(4) Report to FDA.
b. Complaint number (b)(4) reported as MDR (b)(4) contained a (b)(4) page (b)(4) with the device failure findings dated October 22, 2008. Your firm submitted five follow-up reports for this initial report. Follow-up report 005, dated October 14, 2011, was received by FDA on October 17, 2011, and contains the information described in the (b)(4) Report. This information was reported to FDA almost two years after your firm became aware of the information.
c. Complaint number (b)(4) reported as a MDR (b)(4) contained a (b)(4) page (b)(4) Report with the device failure findings dated December 23, 2008. Your firm submitted one follow-up report for this initial report. However, your firm did not report the results of the (b)(4) Report to FDA.
d. Complaint number (b)(4) reported as (b)(4) contained a (b)(4) page (b)(4) Report with the device failure findings dated August 12, 2010. Your firm submitted two follow-up reports for this initial report. Follow-up report 002, dated October 14, 2011, was received on October 17, 2011, and contains the information described in the (b)(4) Report. This information was reported to FDA fourteen months after your firm became aware of the information.
The adequacy of the response dated September 29, 2011 cannot be determined at this time. Your firm's response states that it will implement a series of corrective actions. A final determination of adequacy cannot be made until these actions have been completed and submitted for review. Without this documentation, FDA cannot make an assessment with respect to adequacy.
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 Quality System 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, per 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 - August 10, 2012
• Subsequent certifications - Every 6 months thereafter
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 fifteen (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 the following address: U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Customhouse Room 900,200 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Attn: Kristina Donohue, Compliance Officer. If you have any questions about the content of this letter please contact: Kristina Donohue at 215-717-3078 or Kristina.Donohue@fda.hhs.gov .
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 FDA. The specific violations noted in this letter and in the Inspectional Observations, Form FDA 483, 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.