Regulatory environment and government impact on the quality of dialysis products

  • Steven Hoff
  • Richard Newman
Part of the Developments in Nephrology book series (DINE, volume 39)


Governmental efforts to regulate renal dialysis product manufacturers focuses on three general areas: product registration, regulatory inspections and postapproval surveillance. Product registration is commonly associated with regulatory submissions to the various governmental agencies, where the quality of product design, performance, clinical studies and other information are used to establish the safety and effectiveness of those products. Regulatory inspections help drive the quality of processes within the industry and the overall quality systems and implementation of the good manufacturing practices (GMPs). Post-approval surveillance provides the long-term quality impact on the industry by requiring industry to understand the performance and reliability of their products in the end-user’s hands.


Medical Device European Economic Area Medicine Approval Application Product Registration Medical Device Regulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Verdonck P, editor. The medical device directives. Passport to the future. Baxter World Trade, Brussels, Belgium, 1995, pp. 14.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Morton M., Canadian medical device proposal includes new requirements for premarket notification. RA Focus 1996;1(11):10–11.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Burlington DB. New directions in medical device regulation. An FDA progress report. FDA, Center for Device Evaluation and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD, September 8, 1997 (Internet Scholar
  4. 5.
    Sawyer D. Do it by design. An introduction to human factors in medical devices. FDA Guidance, CDRH, Rockville, MD, December 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Freedman DP and Weinberg GM. Handbook of walk-throughs, inspections, and technical reviews, 3rd edition. NY, Dorset House, 1990:12.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Kahan JS. FDA’s revised GMP regulations. The road to global improvement? Med Dev Diag Indust 1994; 16:128–32.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Riley WJ and Densford JW III. Processes, techniques and tools: the how of a successful design control system. Med Dev Diag Indust 1997; 19:74–80.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    FDA. Design control guidance for medical device manufacturers Rockville, MD., FDA, CDRH, 3/1997.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    FDA. Medical device quality system manual. A small entity compliance guide. Rockville, MD, FDA, CDRH.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Oliver DP. Ten techniques for trimming time to market. Med Dev Diag Indus. 1997; 8:58–65.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Dickinson JG. In its bold new course, FDA needs industry help. Med Dev Diag Indust 1997; 19:52–5.Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    FDA. A new 510(k) paradigm: alternative approaches to demonstrating substantial equivalence in premarket notifications. Rockville, MD, FDA, CDRH, 3/98.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Segal DE and Rubin PD. Mutual recognition agreement between the United States and European Union signals new era of device and drug regulation. RA Focus 1997; 2:20–1.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    Wechsler J. Modernization in China and an MRA at home. Pharmaceut Techol 1997; 9:16–28.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    Wechsler J. Electronic submissions and harmonized inspections. Appl Clin Trials 1997; 6:16–22.Google Scholar
  16. 21.
    Sauer F. A new and fast drug approval system in Europe. Drug Inform J 1997; 31:16Google Scholar
  17. 22.
    Jones K. Wider perspectives of European medicines control. Drug Inform J 1996; 30:1–7.Google Scholar
  18. 23.
    FDA. Reinventing regulation of drugs and medical devices. April, 1995. (Internet:
  19. 28.
    Harman R. ICH 4 — the end of the beginning. Reg Affairs J 1997; 8:713–4.Google Scholar
  20. 30.
    Miller D. International conference on harmonization: the end or just the beginning. RA Focus 1997; 2: 6–9.Google Scholar
  21. 31.
    M?ller H. A common technical document of quality: a nightmare or reality? RA Focus 1997; 2:10–11.Google Scholar
  22. 32.
    Colburn WA, McClurg JE and Cichoracki JR. The strategic role of outsourcing. CROs and the outsourcing phenomenon. Appl Clin Trials 1997; 6:68–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven Hoff
  • Richard Newman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations