Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices)

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.

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.

Clinical investigations to evaluate high-risk orthopaedic devices: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed medical literature

Purpose

The objective of this systematic review was to give an overview of clinical investigations regarding hip and knee arthroplasty implants published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals before entry into force of the EU Medical Device Regulation in May 2021.

Methods

We systematically reviewed the medical literature for a random selection of hip and knee implants to identify all peer-reviewed clinical investigations published within 10 years before and up to 20 years after regulatory approval. We report study characteristics, methodologies, outcomes, measures to prevent bias, and timing of clinical investigations of 30 current implants. The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

We identified 2912 publications and finally included 151 papers published between 1995 and 2021 (63 on hip stems, 34 on hip cups, and 54 on knee systems). We identified no clinical studies published before Conformité Européene (CE)-marking for any selected device, and no studies even up to 20 years after CE-marking in one-quarter of devices. There were very few randomized controlled trials, and registry-based studies generally had larger sample sizes and better methodology.

Conclusion

The peer-reviewed literature alone is insufficient as a source of clinical investigations of these high-risk devices intended for life-long use. A more systematic, efficient, and faster way to evaluate safety and performance is necessary. Using a phased introduction approach, nesting comparative studies of observational and experimental design in existing registries, increasing the use of benefit measures, and accelerating surrogate outcomes research will help to minimize risks and maximize benefits.

National spine surgery registries' characteristics and aims: globally accepted standards have yet to be met. Results of a scoping review and a complementary survey

BACKGROUND

Surgery involving implantable devices is widely used to solve several health issues. National registries are essential tools for implantable device surveillance and vigilance. In 2017, the European Union encouraged Member States to establish "registries and databanks for specific types of devices" to evaluate device safety and performance and ensure their traceability. Spine-implantable devices significantly impact patient safety and public health; spine registries might help improve surgical outcomes. This study aimed to map existing national spine surgery registries and highlight their features and organisational standards to provide an essential reference for establishing other national registries.

METHODS

A scoping search was performed using the Embase, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for the terms "registry", "register", "implantable", and all terms and synonyms related to spinal diseases and national registries in publications from January 2000 to December 2020. This search was later updated and finalised through a web search and an ad hoc survey to collect further detailed information.

RESULTS

Sixty-two peer-reviewed articles were included, which were related to seven national spine registries, six of which were currently active. Three additional active national registries were found through the web search. The nine selected national registries were set up between 1998 and 2021. They collect data on the procedure and use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified nine currently active national spine surgery registries. However, globally accepted standards for developing a national registry of spine surgery are yet to be established. Therefore, an international effort to increase result comparability across registries is highly advisable. We hope the recent initiative from the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) to establish an international collaboration will meet these needs.

Gaps in the evidence underpinning high-risk medical devices in Europe at market entry, and potential solutions

AIM

To determine the level of evidence for innovative high-risk medical devices at market entry.

METHODS

We reviewed all Belgian healthcare payer (RIZIV-INAMI) assessor reports on novel implants or invasive medical devices (n = 18, Class IIb-III) available between 2018 to mid-2019 on applications submitted for inclusion on their reimbursement list. We also conducted a review of the literature on evidence gaps and an analysis of relevant legal and ethical frameworks within the European context.

FINDINGS

Conformity assessment of medical devices is based on performance, safety, and an acceptable risk-benefit balance. Information submitted for obtaining CE marking is confidential and legally protected, limiting access to clinical evidence. Seven out of the 18 RIZIV-INAMI assessor reports (39%) included a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using the novel device, whilst 2 applications (11%) referred to an RCT that used a different device. The population included was inappropriate or unclear for 3 devices (17%). Only half of the applications presented evidence on quality of life or functioning and 2 (11%) presented overall survival data. Four applications (22%) included no data beyond twelve months. The findings from the literature demonstrated similar problems with the study design and the clinical evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

CE marking does not indicate that a device is effective, only that it complies with the law. The lack of transparency hampers evidence-based decision making. Despite greater emphasis on clinical benefit for the patient, the provisions of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are not yet fully aligned with international ethical standards for clinical research. The MDR fails to address key issues, such as the lack of access to data submitted for CE marking and a failure to require evidence of clinical effectiveness. Indeed, a first report shows no improvement in the clinical evidence for implantable devices generated under the MDR. Thus, patients may continue to be exposed to ineffective or unsafe novel devices. The Health Technology Assessment Regulation plans for Joint Scientific Consultations for specific high-risk devices before companies begin their pivotal clinical investigations. The demanded comparative evidence should facilitate payer decisions. Nevertheless, there is also a need for legislation requiring comparative RCTs assessing patient-relevant outcomes for high-risk devices to ensure implementation, including development and implementation of common specifications for study designs.

Quality and Utility of European Cardiovascular and Orthopaedic Registries for the Regulatory Evaluation of Medical Device Safety and Performance Across the Implant Lifecycle: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The European Union Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requires manufacturers to undertake post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) to assess the safety and performance of their devices following approval and Conformité Européenne (CE) marking. The quality and reliability of device registries for this Regulation have not been reported. As part of the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE-MD) project, we identified and reviewed European cardiovascular and orthopaedic registries to assess their structures, methods, and suitability as data sources for regulatory purposes.

METHODS

Regional, national and multi-country European cardiovascular (coronary stents and valve repair/replacement) and orthopaedic (hip/knee prostheses) registries were identified using a systematic literature search. Annual reports, peer-reviewed publications, and websites were reviewed to extract publicly available information for 33 items related to structure and methodology in six domains and also for reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 20 cardiovascular and 26 orthopaedic registries fulfilling eligibility criteria, a median of 33% (IQR: 14%-71%) items for cardiovascular and 60% (IQR: 28%-100%) items for orthopaedic registries were reported, with large variation across domains. For instance, no cardiovascular and 16 (62%) orthopaedic registries reported patient/ procedure-level completeness. No cardiovascular and 5 (19%) orthopaedic registries reported outlier performances of devices, but each with a different outlier definition. There was large heterogeneity in reporting on items, outcomes, definitions of outcomes, and follow-up durations.

CONCLUSION

European cardiovascular and orthopaedic device registries could improve their potential as data sources for regulatory purposes by reaching consensus on standardised reporting of structural and methodological characteristics to judge the quality of the evidence as well as outcomes.

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.

Medical Device Regulation: Should We Care About It?

Medical devices are subject to strict regulatory and approval processes to enter the market and to be used by operators and patients. These are needed to guarantee the users’ safety. The different activities of these processes have important implications for all involved stakeholders and for the whole lifecycle of a medical device. The aim of this work is to provide an overview of some key aspects of the new EU Medical Device Regulation and to show why researchers, innovators and clinicians should care about it. Awareness of regulatory requirements can improve the innovation process and its efficiency in terms of both social and ethical impact, but this awareness needs to be raised in the upcoming months and years. One can shortly say “yes, one needs to take care” of the new EU Medical Device Regulation. First and foremost, it is crucial for the sake of the users’ safety, which is the regulation’s intrinsic goal. Second, it should not just be seen as an obstacle for new innovations in the medical domain, but as a chance as it can provide new opportunities.