Quality Systems

The FDA's 2025 Draft Guidance is titled "Quality Management System Information for Certain Premarket Submission Reviews

January 2, 2026
|
By Dr. Ebot Eyong

This draft guidance describes a streamlined process for FDA reviewers to evaluate a manufacturer's QMS during premarket review, replacing the disconnected, siloed approach with a proactive use of QMS information to achieve a smoother and more effective review.

This draft guidance describes a streamlined process for FDA reviewers to evaluate a manufacturer's QMS during premarket review, replacing the disconnected, "siloed" approach with a proactive use of QMS information to achieve a smoother, more effective review.

Key Drivers and Objectives

  1. Alignment with International Standards: This guidance is a major step in implementing the Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) and aligning US regulations with international norms (ISO 13485:2016).
  2. Enhanced Review Efficiency: By understanding the manufacturer's QMS upfront, reviewers can better assess the credibility of the design validation, risk management, and manufacturing data presented in the submission.
  3. Risk-Based Approach: The level of QMS requested is tailored to the risk profile of the device and the manufacturer's regulatory history.
  4. Proactive Problem Prevention: It shifts the focus from merely assessing the finished device design to also evaluating the system that creates and maintains it, aiming to prevent post-market issues.

Who and What Does It Apply To?

Applicability: The guidance is intended for certain premarket submissions, specifically:

  • PMA (Premarket Approval Applications)
  • PDP (Product Development Protocols)
  • De Novo requests
  • Premarket Report (for devices reviewed under the Breakthrough Devices Program)
  • HDE (Humanitarian Device Exemptions) are also included.

Notably, it does not currently apply to 510(k) submissions. However, the principles may influence future FDA thinking for all device types.

Strategic Implications for Manufacturers

  1. "Shift Left" for Quality: Quality system considerations must be integrated from the start of design and development, not treated as a post-design "check-the-box" activity.
  2. Enhanced Documentation: Your Design History File (DHF) and Risk Management File must be meticulously maintained, as they now serve as direct inputs for regulatory submissions, not just internal audits.
  3. Proactive Preparation: When preparing a PMA, De Novo, or similar submission, your team (RA, QA, R&D) must collaborate to curate QMS info demonstrating a controlled development process.
  4. Potential for a Smoother Review: A well-prepared QMS info package boosts FDA reviewer confidence, reduces questions, and streamlines review by addressing manufacturing concerns early.
  5. Increased Scrutiny on Risk Management: Your risk management process should be comprehensive, transparent, and integrated with design controls, as it will be the focus of the review.

Important Caveats

This is a DRAFT Guidance: As of its 2025 issuance, it is not final. The FDA is seeking public comments. The final version may have changes based on stakeholder feedback.

For more information, visit https://eemedicals.com/

Explore More Publications

Continue exploring Dr. Ebot Eyong’s professional insights on healthcare regulation, FDA submissions, AI-enabled medical devices, quality systems, and global compliance strategy.

AI & Digital Health

Challenges in Medical Device AI Validation

June 18, 2026
|
Dr. Ebot Eyong

The most difficult aspect is ensuring that an AI system remains reliable after deployment as patient populations, clinical practices, and data characteristics evolve over time. This has led regulators to shift from a one-time validation model toward a lifecycle-based approach involving continuous monitoring and revalidation.

Read Article

CMC & FDA Submissions

Why is Module 3 (CMC) in FDA's New Drug Application (NDA) submission always challenging?

May 23, 2025
|
By Dr. Ebot Eyong

Despite thorough engagement with agencies such as the FDA, companies continue to face CMC and analytical issues that lead to Complete Response Letters. These issues often arise late, exposing gaps between sponsor expectations and FDA standards, especially in assay reproducibility, validation, and tech transfer.

Read Article

AI & Digital Health

Case Study: Making Radiology AI Safe, Traceable, and Clinically Sustainable - A case for AI medical-device developers, imaging providers, and regulatory teams

August 20, 2026
|
Dr. Ebot Eyong

Radiology AI does not fail only at the algorithm level. It fails in the gaps between intended use, evidence, workflow, human oversight, change control, and real-world performance. This case study describes a representative, composite implementation designed to illustrate the E&E Regulatory Assurance operating model.

Read Article

Software & SaMD

The Hidden Risk: Gaps in Software Remediation for Medical Devices

June 10, 2025
|
By Dr. Ebot Eyong

As medical devices evolve into software-driven, connected systems, software remediation has become a critical driver of patient safety, regulatory compliance, and commercial success. Yet current frameworks remain fragmented, reactive, and poorly integrated, creating systemic risk and a major opportunity to build regulatory-aware software infrastructure.

Read Article