For the second time this week, the FDA posted something related to the things I pay the most attention to. Earlier this week it was about the DSCSA. This time it was a draft guidance for comment on a proposed delay in enforcement of a small part of the Unique Device Identification (UDI) final rule. I’ve seen a lot of mentions around the internet about this new FDA posting but none of them really explain it very well (including the FDA). I’d like to take a stab.
The proposed FDA UDI rule requires the use of human readable and at least one AIDC technology to carry the new standardized identifier on all non-exempt devices and/or their packages. An AIDC technology is a way of Continue reading FDA Proposed UDI: AIDC Requirements→
Like so many others, I had been patiently awaiting the publication of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Unique Device Identification (UDI) proposed rules. Now that they are out I’ve been studying them and I think I will have enough to say about them that I will cover the topic in a multi-part series. Today I want to look at just one of the differences between the FDA’s proposed UDI rule for medical devices and their National Drug Code (NDC), the pharmaceutical unique identifier. The NDC structure was first conceived by the FDA back in 1969. For more about the history of the NDC see my essay “Anatomy Of The National Drug Code”.
DISCLAIMER: RxTrace contains some of the personal thoughts, ideas and opinions of Dirk Rodgers. The material contained in RxTrace is not legal advice. Dirk Rodgers is not a lawyer. The reader must make their own decisions about the accuracy of the opinions expressed in RxTrace. Readers are encouraged to consult their own legal counsel and trading partners before taking any actions based on information found in RxTrace. RxTrace is not a vehicle for communicating the positions of any company, organization or individual other than Dirk Rodgers.