K Number
K190144
Device Name
MucoPEG
Manufacturer
Date Cleared
2019-11-05

(280 days)

Product Code
Regulation Number
N/A
Panel
DE
Reference & Predicate Devices
AI/MLSaMDIVD (In Vitro Diagnostic)TherapeuticDiagnosticis PCCP AuthorizedThirdpartyExpeditedreview
Intended Use

MucoPEG™ is indicated to relieve the symptoms and discomfort of dry mouth, refresh, moisturize/hydrate, clean, soothe oral irritation, and lubricate oral dryness.

Device Description

MucoPEG™ is an artificial saliva to relieve xerostomia symptoms and discomfort. The main ingredient of MucoPEG™ is a polyethylene glycol (PEG) derivative. The additives to MucoPEG™ are mint (for flavor) and sodium bicarbonate (for pH maintenance when dissolved in water). MucoPEG™ is formulated as a powder and packaged in a single-use packet.

AI/ML Overview

The provided text describes the regulatory clearance for a device called MucoPEG™. It does not contain information about a study that proves the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of AI/ML performance, human reader studies, or ground truth establishment. Instead, it focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device based on non-clinical performance and biocompatibility.

Therefore, the following information cannot be extracted from the provided text:

  • Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: The document presents a comparison table between the subject device (MucoPEG™) and a predicate device (Hydris™ Oral Rinse) in terms of regulatory information, ingredients, conditions of use, physical properties, and biocompatibility. It does not define explicit "acceptance criteria" for MucoPEG™ in the typical sense of a performance study with a target metric. Instead, it aims to show similarity or non-inferiority to the predicate.
  • Sample size used for the test set and data provenance: No test set is described in the context of an AI/ML or reader study. The "test" mentioned refers to non-clinical performance testing and biocompatibility.
  • Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and their qualifications: Not applicable as there is no mention of a test set with ground truth established by experts.
  • Adjudication method: Not applicable.
  • Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: Not applicable. There is no mention of an MRMC study or human reader improvement with AI assistance.
  • Standalone (algorithm-only without human-in-the-loop performance) study: Not applicable. The device is an artificial saliva product, not an AI algorithm.
  • Type of ground truth used: Not applicable.
  • Sample size for the training set: Not applicable.
  • How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable.

The document highlights the following non-clinical performance data and criteria for demonstrating substantial equivalence:

Acceptance Criteria (Implicit from Substantial Equivalence Comparison) and Reported Device Performance

The device MucoPEG™ demonstrated substantial equivalence to the predicate device Hydris™ Oral Rinse based on the following comparisons:

AttributePredicate Device (Hydris™ Oral Rinse) Performance / CharacteristicSubject Device (MucoPEG™) Performance / CharacteristicSimilarity / Difference and "Acceptance"
Regulatory Information
Product CodeLFDLFDSame
RegulationPre-AmendmentPre-AmendmentSame
ClassUnclassifiedUnclassifiedSame
Review PanelDentalDentalSame
Intended UseTemporary relief of xerostomia (i.e., dry mouth).Temporary relief of xerostomia (i.e., dry mouth).Same
Indications for UseTo relieve the symptoms and discomfort of dry mouth, refresh, moisturize/hydrate, clean, soothe oral irritation, and lubricate oral dryness.To relieve the symptoms and discomfort of dry mouth, refresh, moisturize/hydrate, clean, soothe oral irritation, and lubricate oral dryness.Same
Ingredients (Key for Mechanism)
Humectants/MoisturizersGlycerin, Propylene Glycol (PG)Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Tetra Succinimidyl GlutarateSimilar. Both PEG and PG provide the same mechanical mechanism of action and are alkylene oxide by-products purified to USP grade.
BuffersDisodium Phosphate, Sodium PhosphateSodium BicarbonateSimilar. Both are GRAS, providing similar pH levels.
Conditions of Use
Area of UseOral cavityOral cavitySame
Dosage FormOral rinseOral rinseSame
Dosage (per use)20 mL (4 teaspoons)1g dissolved in 20 mL water.Same
Applications/DayUp to 2 times daily.As often as needed.Similar
Method of UseReady to use liquid.Powder to be mixed with H2O prior to use.Similar, both are in liquid form when used.
Environment of UseHomeHomeSame
Prescription/OTCOTCRxDifferent (Rx for subject device to maintain prescribed storage conditions and integrity)
Physical Properties (Performance Testing)
AppearanceViscous liquid, when appliedViscous liquid, when appliedSame
pH5.917.29Similar. Both are near the pH of saliva (5.3 - 7.8).
Viscosity (Pa-s)0.01260.0019Similar. Not significantly different from saliva viscosity (0.0078 Pa-s).
Surface Tension (dyn/cm)30.2449.28Similar. Not significantly different from saliva surface tension (58 dyn/cm).
Moisturization/Hydration of Cell12.0 ± 3.38%71.9 ± 47.26%Similar. The difference was not statistically significant in protecting epithelial cells from dryness (p-value = 0.093).
SterilityNon-SterileNon-SterileSimilar.
Shelf-Life24 months18 monthsSimilar. Validated for 18 months.
Storage ConditionNot specified-20 ± 5 °C (-4 ± 9°F)Different (specific condition for subject device to maintain integrity).
Biocompatibility Testing
BiocompatibilityConforms with ISO 10993-1 cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritationConforms with ISO 10993-1 cytotoxicity, sensitization, irritationSame

Summary of Relevant Information from the Document:

  • Non-Clinical Performance Data: SunBio submitted the device for testing in accordance with ISO 10993-5 (cytotoxicity), ISO 10993-10 (irritation), and ISO 10993-10 (sensitization).
  • Physical Properties Tests: Side-by-side comparative testing was performed against the predicate device for:
    • Appearance
    • pH
    • Viscosity
    • Surface Tension
    • Moisturization/Hydration of cultured epithelial layer cells

The conclusion was that the device does not raise any new questions of safety and effectiveness when compared to the predicate device, leading to a determination of substantial equivalence.

N/A