Preparing healthcare, academic institutions and notified bodies for their involvement in the innovation of medical devices under the new European regulation

Medical device regulation in vascular ageing assessment: a VascAgeNet survey exploring knowledge and perception

BACKGROUND

Regulation has a key role for medical devices throughout their lifecycle aiming to guarantee effectiveness and safety for users. Requirements of Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (MDR) have an impact on novel and previously approved systems. Identification of key stakeholders' needs can support effective implementation of MDR improving the translation to clinical practice of vascular ageing assessment. The aim of this work is to explore knowledge and perception of medical device regulatory framework in vascular ageing field.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A survey was developed within VascAgeNet and distributed in the community by means of the EUSurvey platform.

RESULTS

Results were derived from 94 participants (27% clinicians, 62% researchers, 11% companies) and evidenced mostly a fair knowledge of MDR (despite self-judged as poor by 51%). Safety (83%), validation (56%), risk management (50%) were considered relevant and associated with the regulatory process. Structured support and regulatory procedures connected with medical devices in daily practice at the institutional level are lacking (only 33% report availability of a regulatory department).

CONCLUSIONS

Regulation was recognized relevant by the VascAgeNet community and specific support and training in medical device regulatory science was considered important. A direct link with the regulatory sector is not yet easily available.

Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021.

METHODS

Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval.

RESULTS

At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P < .001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P < .001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification.

The value of using real-world evidence as a source of clinical evidence in the European medical device regulations: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates the benefits, limitations and awareness of using Real World Evidence and Real World Data for post-market clinical follow-up studies and clinical evaluation reports in the European Medical Device Regulations.

METHODOLOGY

A mixed methods study was utilized with qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey.

RESULTS

The findings from the study demonstrate that in the case of the Medical Device Regulations, opportunities exist for manufacturers of legacy devices to conduct Real World Evidence studies to bridge gaps in clinical evidence. The primary value of Real World Evidence lies in its ability to provide an accurate and, therefore, more reliable measure of device safety and performance. As a measure of safety and performance, it supplements clinical evidence generated from pre and post-market clinical investigations, reducing the costs associated with these studies and supporting the manufacturer's benefit: risk conclusion.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into how the medical device industry could utilize Real World Evidence and have an initiative in the EU similar to the FDA-sponsored NESTcc partnership. This would aid medical device manufacturers in transitioning to the MDR clinical evaluation requirements and mitigate the impact on medical device availability in the EU.

Mapping the development process of transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices for neurorehabilitation, the associated barriers and facilitators, and its applicability to acquired dysarthria: a qualitative study of manufacturers' perspectives

PURPOSE

The fragmented nature of the medical device market limits our understanding of how particular sub-markets navigate the device development process. Despite the widespread use of transcutaneous neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), its use for acquired dysarthria treatment has not been sufficiently explored. This study aims to provide a preliminary understanding of the stages involved in the development of NMES devices designed for neurorehabilitation. It also aims to investigate manufacturers' perceptions concerning factors that facilitate or impede its development and determine its applicability for acquired dysarthria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In-depth semi-structured online interviews were conducted with eight NMES device manufacturers located across Europe, North America and Oceania. The interviews were video-recorded, automatically transcribed, manually reviewed, and analysed using a qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

NMES device development for neurorehabilitation involves six complex phases with sequential and overlapping activities. Some emerging concepts were comparable to established medical device models, while others were specific to NMES. Its adaptability to different neurological disorders, the positive academia-industry collaborations, the industry's growth prospects and the promising global efforts for standardised regulations are all key facilitators for its development. However, financial, political, regulatory, and natural constraints emerged as barriers. Indications and challenges for the applicability of NMES for acquired dysarthria treatment were also discussed.

CONCLUSION

The findings provide a foundation for further investigations on the NMES market sub-sector, particularly in the context of neurorehabilitation. The study also provides insights into the potential adoption of NMES for acquired dysarthria, which can serve as a reference for future research.

The New European Medical Device Regulation: Balancing Innovation and Patient Safety

The European Union has introduced stricter provisions for medical devices under the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR). The MDR increases requirements for clinical trial testing for many devices before they can legally be placed on the market and extends requirements for rigorous clinical surveillance of benefits and harms to the entire life cycle of devices. New "expert panels" have been established by the European Commission to advise in the assessment of devices toward certification, and the role of previous "notified bodies" (private companies charged by the Commission with ensuring that manufacturers follow the requirements for device testing) is being expanded. The MDR does not contain a grandfathering clause; thus, all existing medical devices must be recertified under the stricter regulation. The recertification deadline has recently been extended to 2027 or 2028, depending on the device's risk class. Whether most device manufacturers can meet these new requirements is uncertain, and the MDR will likely have important consequences for manufacturers, researchers, clinicians, and patients. Enhanced collaborations between the medical device industry and physician partners will be needed to meet the new requirements in a timely manner to avoid shortages of existing devices and to mitigate barriers to development of new devices.

The Future of Medical Devices in Europe Is at Stake: Concerns over the Implementation of the Medical Devices Regulation 2017/745

In May 2024, all medical devices in Europe will require to comply with the new Medical Device Regulation 2017/745, including those we have been using for years. Currently, there are major delays and problems associated with this new certification. As clinicians, we express our serious concerns regarding whether the system will be ready on time to ensure that all the medical devices that we use will be available for patient care.