Quality analysis of manufacturer's incident reports regarding medical devices

BACKGROUND

Medical devices provide a great number of medical treatments and have an important role in patients' healthcare; however, there are certain risks, sometimes even serious incidents, associated with their usage. To ensure that benefits of medical device usage always outweigh associated risks, it is necessary to closely monitor known risks post-market and detect new ones as early as possible. Among others, valuable instrument of post-market surveillance is manufacturer incident report. Yet to accomplish its intended use, such report must be sufficiently populated and supplied with correct information. Aim of this paper is to assess the quality of manufacturer's incident reports received in HALMED since 2012 to May 2021.

METHODS

The study included 578 initial reports and 566 final reports that were scored according to the evaluating system we designed and categorized as Excellent, Good, Medium, Qualified and Unqualified. For each report medical device risk class was also extracted to calculate the frequency of report occurrence per risk class and time that passed between the initial and final report. Difference in quality of the reports between manufacturers based on EU countries and countries outside the EU was determined by Mann Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Most of initial and final reports fall into two highest quality category level, which means that a sufficient amount of reports are of good/excellent quality and quality of reports prevails. However, the study's results indicate the need for higher scores, especially in critical fields of the form.

CONCLUSIONS

Data obtained from the manufacturer can be scarce and insufficient, causing negative influence on Competent Authority's investigation procedure. Another issue we recognized is extensive underreporting in Croatia, which can seriously undermine the established system.

The Medical Device Regulation of the European Union Intensifies Focus on Clinical Benefits of Devices

This article comments on the new approach to the clinical evaluation of medical devices in the European Union (EU), which adds consideration of intended clinical benefits to the traditional focus on safety and performance. The article also discusses types of clinical benefits that may be claimed and how evidence for them may be generated. In the EU, determining the benefit-risk profile is an existing core requirement of the clinical evaluation performed according to MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev 4 guidelines, but under the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR), "intended" clinical benefits must be determined first. The MDR sets high standards for ensuring reliable data are generated from clinical investigations. It stipulates that the endpoints of clinical investigations should include clinical benefits. However, many clinical-use questions arise only after a device is made widely available to patients. For all medical devices, particularly for on-the-market devices never subjected to randomized controlled trials and for new devices developed when these trials were inappropriate/impossible, the postmarket phase of the device is a valuable source of clinical-benefit data. Postmarket clinical follow-up can corroborate and refine predictions of clinical benefits over time. Indirect clinical effects, which may affect treatment adherence and influence patients' well-being, may surface in the postmarket phase. Real-world clinical data will improve the manufacturer's understanding of their device's clinical benefits, potentially changing claims of intended clinical benefits in subsequent clinical evaluations. A paradigm change in clinical evaluation of medical devices in the EU will ensue when manufacturers ensure that their devices deliver real-world clinical benefits.