name regulatory-affairs-head description Senior Regulatory Affairs Manager for HealthTech and MedTech companies. Prepares FDA 510(k), De Novo, and PMA submission packages; analyzes regulatory pathways for new medical devices; drafts responses to FDA deficiency letters and Notified Body queries; develops CE marking technical documentation under EU MDR 2017/745; coordinates multi-market approval strategies across FDA, EU, Health Canada, PMDA, and NMPA; and maintains regulatory intelligence on evolving standards. Use when users need to plan or execute FDA submissions, navigate 510(k) or PMA approval processes, achieve CE marking, prepare pre-submission meeting materials, write regulatory strategy documents, respond to agency queries, or manage compliance documentation for medical device market access. triggers ["regulatory strategy","FDA submission","EU MDR","510(k)","PMA approval","CE marking","regulatory pathway","market access","clinical evidence","regulatory intelligence","submission planning","notified body"]
Head of Regulatory Affairs
Regulatory strategy development, submission management, and global market access for medical device organizations.
Table of Contents
Regulatory Strategy Workflow
Develop regulatory strategy aligned with business objectives and product characteristics.
Workflow: New Product Regulatory Strategy
Gather product information:
Intended use and indications
Device classification (risk level)
Technology platform
Target markets and timeline
Identify applicable regulations per target market:
FDA (US): 21 CFR Part 820, 510(k)/PMA/De Novo
EU: MDR 2017/745, Notified Body requirements
Other markets: Health Canada, PMDA, NMPA, TGA
Determine optimal regulatory pathway:
Compare submission types (510(k) vs De Novo vs PMA)
Assess predicate device availability
Evaluate clinical evidence requirements
Develop regulatory timeline with milestones
Estimate resource requirements and budget
Identify regulatory risks and mitigation strategies
Obtain stakeholder alignment and approval
Validation: Strategy document approved; timeline accepted; resources allocated
Regulatory Pathway Selection Matrix
Factor 510(k) De Novo PMA Predicate Available Yes No N/A Risk Level Low-Moderate Low-Moderate High Clinical Data Usually not required May be required Required Review Time 90 days (MDUFA) 150 days 180 days User Fee ~$22K (2024) ~$135K ~$440K Best For Me-too devices Novel low-risk High-risk, novel
Regulatory Strategy Document Template
REGULATORY STRATEGY
Product: [Name] Version: [X.X] Date: [Date]
1. PRODUCT OVERVIEW
Intended use: [One-sentence statement of intended patient population, body site, and clinical purpose]
Device classification: [Class I / II / III]
Technology: [Brief description, e.g., "AI-powered wound-imaging software, SaMD"]
2. TARGET MARKETS & TIMELINE
| Market | Pathway | Priority | Target Date |
|--------|----------------|----------|-------------|
| USA | 510(k) / PMA | 1 | Q1 20XX |
| EU | Class [X] MDR | 2 | Q2 20XX |
3. REGULATORY PATHWAY RATIONALE
FDA: [510(k) / De Novo / PMA] — Predicate: [K-number or "none"]
EU: Class [X] via [Annex IX / X / XI] — NB: [Name or TBD]
Rationale: [2–3 sentences on key factors driving pathway choice]
4. CLINICAL EVIDENCE STRATEGY
Requirements: [Summarize what each market needs, e.g., "510(k): bench + usability; EU Class IIb: PMCF study"]
Approach: [Literature review / Prospective study / Combination]
5. RISKS AND MITIGATION
| Risk | Prob | Impact | Mitigation |
|------------------------------|------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| Predicate delisted by FDA | Low | High | Identify secondary predicate now |
| NB audit backlog | Med | Med | Engage NB 6 months before target |
6. RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Budget: $[Amount] Personnel: [FTEs] External: [Consultants / CRO]
FDA Submission Workflow
Prepare and submit FDA regulatory applications.
Workflow: 510(k) Submission
Confirm 510(k) pathway suitability:
Predicate device identified (note K-number, e.g., K213456)
Substantial equivalence (SE) argument supportable on intended use and technological characteristics
No new intended use or technology concerns triggering De Novo
Schedule and conduct Pre-Submission (Q-Sub) meeting if needed (see Pre-Sub Decision )
Compile submission package checklist:
Conduct internal review and quality check against FDA RTA checklist
Prepare eCopy per FDA format requirements (PDF bookmarked, eCopy cover page)
Submit via FDA ESG portal with user fee payment
Monitor MDUFA clock and respond to AI/RTA requests within deadlines
Validation: Submission accepted; MDUFA date received; tracking system updated
Substantial Equivalence Comparison Example
Characteristic Predicate (K213456) Subject Device Same? Notes Intended use Wound measurement Wound measurement ✓ Identical Technology 2D camera 2D + AI analysis ✗ New TC; address below Energy type Non-energized Non-energized ✓ Patient contact No No ✓ SE conclusion New TC does not raise new safety/effectiveness questions; bench data demonstrates equivalent accuracy (±2mm vs ±3mm predicate)
Workflow: PMA Submission
Confirm PMA pathway:
Class III device or no suitable predicate
Clinical data strategy defined
Complete IDE clinical study if required:
IDE approval
Clinical protocol execution
Study report completion
Conduct Pre-Submission meeting
Compile PMA submission checklist:
Submit original PMA application
Address FDA questions and deficiencies
Prepare for FDA facility inspection
Validation: PMA approved; approval letter received; post-approval requirements documented
FDA Submission Timeline
Milestone 510(k) De Novo PMA Pre-Sub Meeting Day -90 Day -90 Day -120 Submission Day 0 Day 0 Day 0 RTA Review Day 15 Day 15 Day 45 Substantive Review Days 15–90 Days 15–150 Days 45–180 Decision Day 90 Day 150 Day 180
Common FDA Deficiencies and Prevention
Category Common Issues Prevention Substantial Equivalence Weak predicate comparison; no performance data Build SE table with data column; cite recognized standards Performance Testing Incomplete protocols; missing worst-case rationale Follow FDA-recognized standards; document worst-case justification Biocompatibility Missing endpoints; no ISO 10993-1 risk assessment Complete ISO 10993-1 matrix before testing Software Inadequate hazard analysis; no cybersecurity bill of materials IEC 62304 compliance + FDA cybersecurity guidance checklist Labeling Inconsistent claims vs. IFU; missing symbols standard Cross-check label against IFU; cite ISO 15223-1 for symbols
See: references/fda-submission-guide.md
EU MDR Submission Workflow
Achieve CE marking under EU MDR 2017/745.
Workflow: MDR Technical Documentation
Confirm device classification per MDR Annex VIII
Select conformity assessment route based on class:
Class I: Self-declaration
Class IIa/IIb: Notified Body involvement
Class III: Full NB assessment
Select and engage Notified Body (for Class IIa+) — see selection criteria below
Compile Technical Documentation per Annex II checklist:
Establish and document QMS per ISO 13485
Submit application to Notified Body
Address NB questions and coordinate audit
Validation: CE certificate issued; Declaration of Conformity signed; EUDAMED registration complete
GSPR Checklist Row Example
GSPR Ref Requirement Standard / Guidance Evidence Document Status Annex I §1 Safe design and manufacture ISO 14971:2019 Risk Management File v2.1 Complete Annex I §11.1 Devices with measuring function ±accuracy EN ISO 15223-1 Performance Test Report PT-003 Complete Annex I §17 Cybersecurity MDCG 2019-16 Cybersecurity Assessment CS-001 In progress
Clinical Evidence Requirements by Class
Class Clinical Requirement Documentation I Clinical evaluation (CE) CE report IIa CE with literature focus CE report + PMCF plan IIb CE with clinical data CE report + PMCF + clinical study (some) III CE with clinical investigation CE report + PMCF + clinical investigation
Notified Body Selection Criteria
Scope: Designated for your specific device categoryCapacity: Confirmed availability within target timelineExperience: Track record with your technology typeGeography: Proximity for on-site auditsCost: Fee structure transparencyCommunication: Responsiveness and query turnaround
See: references/eu-mdr-submission-guide.md
Global Market Access Workflow
Coordinate regulatory approvals across international markets.
Workflow: Multi-Market Submission Strategy
Define target markets based on business priorities
Sequence markets for efficient evidence leverage:
Phase 1: FDA + EU (reference markets)
Phase 2: Recognition markets (Canada, Australia)
Phase 3: Major markets (Japan, China)
Phase 4: Emerging markets
Identify local requirements per market:
Clinical data acceptability
Local agent/representative needs
Language and labeling requirements
Develop master technical file with localization plan
Establish in-country regulatory support
Execute parallel or sequential submissions
Track approvals and coordinate launches
Validation: All target market approvals obtained; registration database updated
Market Priority Matrix
Market Size Complexity Recognition Priority USA Large High N/A 1 EU Large High N/A 1–2 Canada Medium Medium MDSAP 2 Australia Medium Low EU accepted 2 Japan Large High Local clinical 3 China Large Very High Local testing 3 Brazil Medium High GMP inspection 3–4
Documentation Efficiency Strategy
Document Type Single Source Localization Required Technical file core Yes Format adaptation Risk management Yes None Clinical data Yes Bridging assessment QMS certificate Yes (ISO 13485) Market-specific audit Labeling Master label Translation, local requirements IFU Master content Translation, local symbols
See: references/global-regulatory-pathways.md
Regulatory Intelligence Workflow
Monitor and respond to regulatory changes affecting product portfolio.
Workflow: Regulatory Change Management
Monitor regulatory sources:
FDA Federal Register, guidance documents
EU Official Journal, MDCG guidance
Notified Body communications
Industry associations (AdvaMed, MedTech Europe)
Assess relevance to product portfolio
Evaluate impact:
Timeline to compliance
Resource requirements
Product changes needed
Develop compliance action plan
Communicate to affected stakeholders
Implement required changes
Document compliance status
Validation: Compliance action plan approved; changes implemented on schedule
Regulatory Monitoring Sources
Source Type Frequency FDA Federal Register Regulations, guidance Daily FDA Device Database 510(k), PMA, recalls Weekly EU Official Journal MDR/IVDR updates Weekly MDCG Guidance EU implementation As published ISO/IEC Standards updates Quarterly Notified Body Audit findings, trends Per interaction
Impact Assessment Template
REGULATORY CHANGE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Change: [Description] Source: [Regulation/Guidance]
Effective Date: [Date] Assessment Date: [Date] Assessed By: [Name]
AFFECTED PRODUCTS
| Product | Impact (H/M/L) | Action Required | Due Date |
|---------|----------------|------------------------|----------|
| [Name] | [H/M/L] | [Specific action] | [Date] |
COMPLIANCE ACTIONS
1. [Action] — Owner: [Name] — Due: [Date]
2. [Action] — Owner: [Name] — Due: [Date]
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS: Budget $[X] | Personnel [X] hrs
APPROVAL: Regulatory _____________ Date _______ / Management _____________ Date _______
Decision Frameworks
Pathway Selection and Classification Reference
FDA Pathway Selection
Is predicate device available?
│
Yes─┴─No
│ │
▼ ▼
Is device Is risk level
substantially Low-Moderate?
equivalent? │
│ Yes─┴─No
Yes─┴─No │ │
│ │ ▼ ▼
▼ ▼ De Novo PMA
510(k) Consider required
De Novo
or PMA
EU MDR Classification
Is the device active?
│
Yes─┴─No
│ │
▼ ▼
Is it an Does it contact
implant? the body?
│ │
Yes─┴─No Yes─┴─No
│ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
III IIb Check Class I
contact (measuring/
type sterile if
and applicable)
duration
Pre-Submission Meeting Decision
Factor Schedule Pre-Sub Skip Pre-Sub Novel Technology ✓ New Intended Use ✓ Complex Testing ✓ Uncertain Predicate ✓ Clinical Data Needed ✓ Well-established ✓ Clear Predicate ✓ Standard Testing ✓
Regulatory Escalation Criteria
Situation Escalation Level Action Submission rejection VP Regulatory Root cause analysis, strategy revision Major deficiency Director Cross-functional response team Timeline at risk Management Resource reallocation review Regulatory change VP Regulatory Portfolio impact assessment Safety signal Executive Immediate containment and reporting
Tools and References
Scripts
Regulatory Tracker Features:
Track multiple submissions across markets
Monitor status and target dates
Identify overdue submissions
Generate status reports
Example usage:
$ python regulatory_tracker.py --report status
Submission Status Report — 2024-11-01
┌──────────────────┬──────────┬────────────┬─────────────┬──────────┐
│ Product │ Market │ Type │ Target Date │ Status │
├──────────────────┼──────────┼────────────┼─────────────┼──────────┤
│ WoundScan Pro │ USA │ 510(k) │ 2024-12-01 │ On Track │
│ WoundScan Pro │ EU │ MDR IIb │ 2025-03-01 │ At Risk │
│ CardioMonitor X1 │ Canada │ Class II │ 2025-01-15 │ On Track │
└──────────────────┴──────────┴────────────┴─────────────┴──────────┘
1 submission at risk: WoundScan Pro EU — NB engagement not confirmed.
References
Document Content fda-submission-guide.md FDA pathways, requirements, review process eu-mdr-submission-guide.md MDR classification, technical documentation, clinical evidence global-regulatory-pathways.md Canada, Japan, China, Australia, Brazil requirements iso-regulatory-requirements.md ISO 13485, 14971, 10993, IEC 62304, 62366 requirements
Key Performance Indicators
KPI Target Calculation First-time approval rate >85% (Approved without major deficiency / Total submitted) × 100 On-time submission >90% (Submitted by target date / Total submissions) × 100 Review cycle compliance >95% (Responses within deadline / Total requests) × 100 Regulatory hold time <20% (Days on hold / Total review days) × 100
Related Skills
