A new morphologic classification of congenital tracheobronchial stenosis.

S. Speggiorin,M. Torre,D. Roebuck,C. McLaren,M. Elliott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.12.019

2012-03-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Improving Medical Device Regulation: The United States and Europe in Perspective

CORINNA SORENSON,MICHAEL DRUMMOND

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12043

2014-03-01

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:CONTEXT: Recent debates and events have brought into question the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks for medical devices in the United States and Europe to ensure their performance, safety, and quality. This article provides a comparative analysis of medical device regulation in the two jurisdictions, explores current reforms to improve the existing systems, and discusses additional actions that should be considered to fully meet this aim. Medical device regulation must be improved to safeguard public health and ensure that high-quality and effective technologies reach patients.METHODS: We explored and analyzed medical device regulatory systems in the United States and Europe in accordance with the available gray and peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents.FINDINGS: The two regulatory systems differ in their mandate and orientation, organization, pre- and postmarket evidence requirements, and transparency of process. Despite these differences, both jurisdictions face similar challenges for ensuring that only safe and effective devices reach the market, monitoring real-world use, and exchanging pertinent information on devices with key users such as clinicians and patients. To address these issues, reforms have recently been introduced or debated in the United States and Europe that are principally focused on strengthening regulatory processes, enhancing postmarket regulation through more robust surveillance systems, and improving the traceability and monitoring of devices. Some changes in premarket requirements for devices are being considered.CONCLUSIONS: Although the current reforms address some of the outstanding challenges in device regulation, additional steps are needed to improve existing policy. We examine a number of actions to be considered, such as requiring high-quality evidence of benefit for medium- and high-risk devices; moving toward greater centralization and coordination of regulatory approval in Europe; creating links between device identifier systems and existing data collection tools, such as electronic health records; and fostering increased and more effective use of registries to ensure safe postmarket use of new and existing devices.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Regulation and Clinical Investigation of Medical Device in the European Union

Manita,Aakash Deep,Vikram,Avtar C. Rana,Prabodh C. Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/2213476x06666190821095407

2019-11-13

Applied Clinical Research, Clinical Trials and Regulatory Affairs

Abstract:Background:: Medical devices are the machine, tool, instrument, apparatus, implant, calibrator in vitro, software, the similar or related object intended for use by the manufacturer alone or in combination becoming increasingly important in the healthcare sector as these are used to diagnosis, control, prevention or treatment of an illness. Safety of the world population is the highest priority in order to launch new medical devices for the treatment and diagnostic of several diseases. New innovation in industries and regulations work together to provide devices for different world market and to improve quality and safety of exiting devices in the market. The main key for devices is to classify the determination of actual regulatory pathway which ensures the safety standards and other regulatory requirements in a specific country. We perform clinical trials for medical device which are quite different from the clinical trials performed for drug analysis. For any high-risk devices, the new EU law states that the manufacturer has to prepare a complete summary for their evidence. The clinical trials regulation provides more transparency on clinical trials data. Complete transparency is required for the maximum possibility of informed decisions in order to use new medical devices. Objective:: The current manuscript will provide the information regarding the regulatory framework for the approval of medical devices and clinical investigation of medical device in European Union and comparison of approval process of medical device in USA, EU and India. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the most suitable and emerging requirements that manufacturers need for introducing their medical devices in the market in compliance with the MDR regulations. Conclusion:: The proposal for a modified regulation of medical devices aims to ensure more robust clinical data in support of the CE marking applications of the medical device. The clinical investigation requirements will be mandatory, and there will be an obligation to demonstrate the clinical benefits of the device and provide a rigorous equivalence test if the assessment is based on comparison devices. The new European legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using a randomized controlled trial if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized.

English Else
The new regulation of non-medical neurotechnologies in the European Union: overview and reflection

Christoph Bublitz,Sjors Ligthart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsae021

2024-09-25

Abstract:The regulation of neurotechnologies for non-medical purposes such as enhancement, gaming, or well-being is a topic of ongoing controversy. Without much attention, the European Union addressed it by two implementing regulations to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) for non-invasive brain stimulation devices, passed in December 2022. This paper presents main aspect of these regulations and the conditions for placing non-medical neurodevices on the EU market, especially the risk threshold and the requirement for pre-market certification. It also provides a first critical comment on selected aspects and the unclear situation regarding research only devices which has alarmed the European neurotechnology sector.
PRE-MARKET CLINICAL EVALUATIONS OF INNOVATIVE HIGH-RISK MEDICAL DEVICES IN EUROPE

Frank Hulstaert,Mattias Neyt,Imgard Vinck,Sabine Stordeur,Mirjana Huić,Stefan Sauerland,Marja R. Kuijpers,Payam Abrishami,Hindrik Vondeling,Bruno Flamion,Silvio Garattini,Mira Pavlovic,Hans van Brabandt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462312000335

2012-07-01

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:Objectives: High-quality clinical evidence is most often lacking when novel high-risk devices enter the European market. At the same time, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is often initiated as a requirement for obtaining market access in the US. Should coverage in Europe be postponed until RCT data are available? We studied the premarket clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe compared with the US, and with medicines, where appropriate. Methods: The literature and regulatory documents were checked. Representatives from industry, Competent Authorities, Notified Bodies, Ethics Committees, and HTA agencies were consulted. We also discuss patient safety and the transparency of information. Results: In contrast to the US, there is no requirement in Europe to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of high-risk devices in the premarket phase. Patients in Europe can thus have earlier access to a potentially lifesaving device, but at the risk of insufficiently documented efficacy and safety. Variations in the stringency of clinical reviews, both at the level of Notified Bodies and Competent Authorities, do not guarantee patient safety. We tried to document the design of premarket trials in Europe and number of patients exposed, but failed as this information is not made public. Furthermore, the Helsinki Declaration is not followed with respect to the registration and publication of premarket trials. Conclusions: For innovative high-risk devices, new EU legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using an RCT if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Regulatory perspectives on post-market evidence generation schemes for high-risk medical devices: a systematic review

Jesús Aranda,Agnieszka Dobrzynska,Maria Piedad Rosario-Lozano,Juan Carlos Rejón-Parrilla,David Epstein,Juan Antonio Blasco-Amaro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2431234

2024-12-04

Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research

Abstract:Introduction The new European Medical Device Regulation has raised the bar for the clinical evaluation of medical devices to gain marketing authorization by Notified Bodies (NBs) regarding certificates of conformity in Europe. Restrictions applied for High-risk medical devices (HRMD) may require further evidence generation. Some other jurisdictions apply similar schemes that may be useful to the European Union. This systematic review focused on extracting lessons from similar schemes worldwide to the European context.

pharmacology & pharmacy,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Comparison of approval procedures for medical devices in Europe and the USA

Marcel Vila Wagner,Thomas Schanze

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cdbme-2019-0152

2019-09-01

Current Directions in Biomedical Engineering

Abstract:Abstract Important achievements such as the discovery of penicillin increased life expectancy in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, the influence of technical equipment and biomedical research led to a further leap in life expectancy. The use of computer devices with sophisticated software also improved the quality of life. This is linked to the fact that all these achievements have now led to the emergence of one of the largest import and export markets in the USA, alongside the european union (EU), which is an association of European states. In order to guarantee a uniform quality of this abundance of different products and therapies, there are worldwide corresponding regulations, to which all manufacturers must adhere. The entry into force of these regulations, with the associated approval and testing obligations for each individual medical device, ensures that a consistently high quality of products is used on patients. Of course, high quality as well as high functionality and safety levels of medical products are a must. However, the implementation of these regulations is realized differently in the various markets, as there is no global harmonization. This work focuses on approval procedures for medical devices in Europe (EU) and the USA and compares significant differences in the approval procedures, which are shown as a graphical comparison. An example is an approval of medical devices by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is an US government agency. In Europe (EU) there is a manufacturer’s declaration of conformity for the approval.

English Else
POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF RECLASSIFICATION OF NON-INVASIVE BRAIN STIMULATING AS A CLASS III MEDICAL DEVICES IN EUROPE AND ITS REFLECTIONS TO OUR COUNTRY

Lütfü HANOĞLU,Beyzanur KAÇ,Mahmut TOKAÇ

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52675/jhesp.1279591

2023-05-17

Journal of Health Systems and Policies

Abstract:ABSTRACT Neuromodulation techniques (NIBS) and devices that have emerged in the last thirty years are continued to develop rapidly. NIBS, which initially appeared to be effective only for the treatment of some neurological diseases, has been found to be effective in increase the capacities of normal people for education, sports, business life and military fields over time. This has led to the production of home/individual use versions of NIBS devices. On the one hand, the individual use of these devices is increasing rapidly in many countries, on the other hand, many researches on the effectiveness, safety and new usage areas of the techniques continue. The production, placing on the market and use of all this NIBS devices to be used for scientific research, treatment or individual uses are directly or indirectly dependent on the rules and conditions in the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) of the European Union (EU). Our country also complies with these rules. A new regulation numbered 2022/2347 has been published by the EU for the specification of non-medical product groups included in the Annex XVI of regulation No. 2017/745. NIBS devices, one of the product groups in question, have been subjected to a new classification due to this regulation and this change has caused various objections from all stakeholders related to this field. Objections to the new classification stem from the fact that ethics committees will drastically change their approach to research in these areas, and that these changes involve much more challenging conditions for researchers and device manufacturers than before. As a result of this situation, the main concern has emerged that the limitation of research will lead to the interruption of production and development activities in this field and even to prevent the the patients, from benefiting from these treatments. In this study, the old and new regulations are analysed together and it is aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of the procedure and content of the regulation, its reflections on the field and the criticisms brought to the regulation in the light of scientific data in the field. Based on this assessment, an attempt has been made to provide a perspective to the relevant stakeholders in Turkey, researchers, ethics committees that authorise/supervise research with these devices in line with the EU, and the competent authority that oversees the production, distribution and conformity of medical devices, both on the current situation and what should be. Keywords: Non-invasive neuromodulation, European Union Medical Device Regulation, MDR, Turkish Medicines and Medical Devices Agency (TİTCK)

English Else
The Difference between Approval Processes for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices in Europe

John Marshall,Kristine Morrill,Marine Gobbe,Lauren Blanchard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000517522

2021-01-01

Ophthalmologica

Abstract:The approval of new ophthalmic medical devices and medicinal products is governed by separate processes in Europe with different requirements, classifications, and timelines involved. For pharmaceuticals, companies can go through a centralized European-level process working with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or a decentralized procedure working with a member state competent authority to gain approval or via mutual recognition. For medical devices, companies must work with a European Union approved Notified Body as there is no equivalent to the EMA. With medicinal products, approval can be sought as a new medicinal product, generic, known substance, or as an advanced therapy. With medical devices, the classifications are based on the use and complexity of the device as well as the risk, beginning with class I (surgical instruments and some diagnostic devices), to class IIA, class IIB, and class III, which are the most invasive devices, such as pacemakers and breast implants. From May 2021, the European Union will fully implement the Medical Device Regulation, which enforces increased requirements before class IIa and above devices can be CE marked. This process for approving medical devices and pharmaceuticals in Europe is designed to ensure that new technology is thoroughly vetted before becoming commercially available.

ophthalmology
FDA Regulation of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices: Access to Safe and Effective Neurotechnologies for All Americans

Leigh Anderson,Patrick Antkowiak,Aden Asefa,Amber Ballard,Tushar Bansal,Ayo Bello,Bernard Berne,Kristen Bowsher,Bennett Blumenkopf,Ian Broverman,Mohamad Bydon,Kuo Chao,Peter Como,Karlene Cork,Ann Costello,Kathryn De Laurentis,Angela DeMarco,Heather Dean,John Doucet,Bradley Dworak,Lisa Epperson,Eric Franca,Naz Ghassemian,Chandramallika Ghosh,Anupama Govindarajan,Jay Gupta,Stacie Gutowski,Robert Herrmann,Michael Hoffmann,William Heetderks,Steven Hsu,Daryl Kaufman,Erin Keegan,Gregg Kittlesen,Kevin Khuu,Hyung Lee,Larry Lo,Ian Marcus,Timothy Marjenin,Binoy Mathews,Sanjay Misra,Vivek Pinto,Vesper Ramos,Samuel Raben,Avena Russell,Devjani Saha,Joonil Seog,Christian Shenouda,Myra Smith,Xiaorui Tang,Kelliann Wachrathit,Jaime Waterhouse,Dhanya Williams,Xiaolin Zheng,Carlos Peña

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.10.036

IF: 16.2

2016-01-01

Neuron

Abstract:The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ensures that patients in the U.S. have access to safe and effective medical devices. The Division of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices reviews medical technologies that interface with the nervous system. This article addresses how to navigate the FDA's regulatory landscape to successfully bring medical devices to patients.
Regulation of orthopaedic devices: Future implications for research and innovation

Claire A Donnelley,Vincent J Devlin,Mitchel B Harris,Robert A Poggie,Roy W Sanders,Saam Morshed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/OI9.0000000000000101

2021-04-15

Abstract:The conception-to-market development of orthopaedic devices occurs across the total product life cycle including device design and preclinical testing, clinical investigations to support marketing applications, and monitoring of device performance after market introduction. This process involves industry, regulatory agencies, health care providers, engineers, scientists, and patients. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for regulating medical devices in the United States, and uses a 3-tier classification system based on the level of control necessary to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. Classification directs the required regulatory pathway and premarket submission type. Variations in global regulations, particularly between the United States, European Economic Area (EEA), and the United Kingdom (UK), may impact industry response to orthopaedic device development. Changing device innovation and reimbursement models have led to the consolidation of market share among larger companies. Although larger companies are better able to cope with more rigorous regulatory requirements, this leads to decreased competition and increased upward price pressure. To assist with the complex regulatory processes, the FDA offers pre-submission assistance as an opportunity for early collaboration and discussion about the medical device or device-led combination product submissions. Orthopaedic organizations, such as the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), may assist in postmarket device surveillance through the coordinated development and maintenance of clinical data registries. Such registries can longitudinally follow patients with a specific orthopaedic pathology or device usage, and monitor outcomes towards improvements in next-generation device development. As technology evolves, the nexus of regulation, industry, and patient outcome monitoring will continue to support safe and effective device innovation.
Challenges for clinical translation of long-acting and implantable drug delivery systems

Michael Colvin,Jason Colvin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-821749-8.00006-9

2022-01-01

Abstract:Long-acting and implantable drug delivery systems (IDDSs) encompass a variety of therapeutic implements placed inside the body to exert a certain therapeutic action for an extended duration. They are classified under different categories from pharmaceutical science and regulatory perspectives. If the system is solely classified as a drug, a device, or a biologic, then the regulatory pathway is rather straightforward. However, if the system consists of two or more regulated components (drugs, medical devices, or biological products) combined prior to use, the systems are recognized as combination products. Regulatory approval for combination products is more complicated and less formalized than for the approval of each component independently. The rapid growth in combination products available in the global pharmaceutical and biotechnology marketplace has prompted both the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and the European Union (EU) to update their guidance on how such products are reviewed and approved for sale. The new EU draft guidance, Guideline on the Quality Requirements for Drug-Device Combinations, and US draft guidance, Principles of Premarket Pathways for Combination Products, are the latest attempts by each regulatory body to adequately regulate combination products. The progression of long-acting and IDDSs covers a variety of therapeutic devices placed inside the body to exert a certain therapeutic action for an extended duration. They are classified under different categories from pharmaceutical science and regulatory perspectives. The uniqueness and variety of IDDSs prevent the application of a standardized regulation for all of these products; therefore sponsors face regulatory challenges to register and market their products. This review investigates the requirements imposed by the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding regulatory challenges and guidance on how many IDDSs are classified, regulated, and introduced in the market. Businesses that want to register and maintain (IDDSs) products in the United States and the EU face two markets that are quite different from each other. These markets are not comparable to each other; their regulations are different from and independent of each other. Complete knowledge of the regulations in all their interpretation and nuances is necessary for businesses that want to market IDDS products into the United States or the EU. The regulatory classification of any IDDS, as a “drug,” “medical device,” or a “combination product,” is the foundation in determining the regulatory pathway, which ultimately determines the regulatory and quality standard requirements preceding the marketing approval. IDDSs are generally recognized as combination products as they consist of two or more regulated components (drugs, medical devices, or biological products) combined prior to use to function as a single entity.
Innovation and regulation in human implant technologies: developing comparative approaches

Alex Faulkner,Julie Kent

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00389-0

2001-10-01

Abstract:Human implant technologies are subject to continual innovation and proliferation, raising important issues for technology testing, healthcare sciences, clinical performance and risk assessment, and regulation. The regulatory environment of medical devices is being shaped by harmonisation of standards in the European Union. The aim of this paper is to compare the histories and current regulatory environment of two technologies, breast implants and artificial hips, and to consider the implications of this comparison for a sociological healthcare research agenda to investigate the issues raised. The main focus is upon developments in the United Kingdom. Major points of contrast between the two technologies include the institutional contexts in which clinical evidence has been marshalled for government attention; the relative importance of strategic alliances between clinicians and manufacturers in the innovation process; the degree of public controversy evident; the varying definitions of an 'adverse incident' within medical device vigilance systems; and in the UK the presence of a national register for breast implants but not for hip implants. Inter-national contrasts in these dimensions are noted. The analysis suggests that improved understanding is required of the institutional, organisational and professional processes involved in implant technology innovation and regulation. A comparative research agenda is proposed, focusing upon: innovativeness and proliferation; safety and technological standards; clinical and social outcomes; and consumer/user information and choice. It is concluded that research in these areas will enhance the 'evidence-base' for the evaluation of human implant technologies in the context of their innovatory and regulatory environments.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
Review of U.S. Medical Device Regulation

Jan B. Pietzsch,Lauren M. Aquino,Paul G. Yock,M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,John H. Linehan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2812429

2007-10-19

Journal of Medical Devices

Abstract:Medical device regulation plays a significant role in the design, development, and commercialization of new medical technologies. A comprehensive understanding of the various regulatory requirements and their practical implementation is thus an essential cornerstone of successful medical device innovation. In this paper, we review the background, mission, and statutory requirements of medical device regulation in the United States. As opposed to pharmaceuticals, which have been regulated since the early 1900s, medical device regulation was not enacted before 1976, when Congress signed into law the Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has implemented a risk-based classification system, which is essential in determining the regulatory pathway for a given device. Our review of the different regulatory pathways discusses the specific steps and requirements associated with each pathway, and their implications for development and testing of different types of devices. The differences in these pathways are significant, and thus require careful consideration and analysis already at early stages of development. The FDA’s Quality Systems Regulation, which outlines specific requirements for development, testing, production, and postmarket surveillance, is another important aspect of device regulation. We present its elements and relationship to design controls and other operating procedures implemented by device manufacturers, and discuss their relevance in ensuring the safety and effectiveness of marketed devices. A summary of recent additions to device regulation, implemented by the FDA to allow for adequate regulation of products that combine drugs and devices or biologics and devices (so-called combination products), completes our review. Because of the significance of device regulation for medical device innovation, we strongly support increased efforts to educate the various stakeholders involved in the medical device development process, both at the academic and professional level.

engineering, biomedical
Factors That Facilitate Regulatory Approval for Drug-Device Combination Products in the European Union and United States of America: A Mixed Method Study of Industry Views

Fiona Masterson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017735142

2018-07-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The regulatory environment is one of the key factors in successfully bringing an innovative medical product, like a drug-device combination product, to market. This paper offers insight into the experiences of those involved in obtaining regulatory approval of drug-device combination products in the European Union and the United States.METHODS: The research consisted of two phases, qualitative data collection (through semi-structured interviews) and analysis, followed by quantitative data collection (through an online survey) and analysis.RESULTS: A conceptual model was developed that depicted the facilitating factors for obtaining regulatory approval of a drug-device combination product, relevant to the European Union and United States systems, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: This model provides, for the first time, a comprehensive understanding of these factors, providing a foundation that could be adapted to reflect specific drug-device combination products. This research demonstrated originality of approach in interviewing thought leaders in the life sciences sector as well as conducting a survey that spans two of the largest jurisdictions for drug-device combination products in the world.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Evaluating the Safety Profile of Non-Active Implantable Medical Devices Compared with Medicines

Josep Pane,Preciosa M. Coloma,Katia M. C. Verhamme,Miriam C. J. M. Sturkenboom,Irene Rebollo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40264-016-0474-1

2016-12-07

Drug Safety

Abstract:Recent safety issues involving non-active implantable medical devices (NAIMDs) have highlighted the need for better pre-market and post-market evaluation. Some stakeholders have argued that certain features of medicine safety evaluation should also be applied to medical devices. Our objectives were to compare the current processes and methodologies for the assessment of NAIMD safety profiles with those for medicines, identify potential gaps, and make recommendations for the adoption of new methodologies for the ongoing benefit–risk monitoring of these devices throughout their entire life cycle. A literature review served to examine the current tools for the safety evaluation of NAIMDs and those for medicines. We searched MEDLINE using these two categories. We supplemented this search with Google searches using the same key terms used in the MEDLINE search. Using a comparative approach, we summarized the new product design, development cycle (preclinical and clinical phases), and post-market phases for NAIMDs and drugs. We also evaluated and compared the respective processes to integrate and assess safety data during the life cycle of the products, including signal detection, signal management, and subsequent potential regulatory actions. The search identified a gap in NAIMD safety signal generation: no global program exists that collects and analyzes adverse events and product quality issues. Data sources in real-world settings, such as electronic health records, need to be effectively identified and explored as additional sources of safety information, particularly in some areas such as the EU and USA where there are plans to implement the unique device identifier (UDI). The UDI and other initiatives will enable more robust follow-up and assessment of long-term patient outcomes. The safety evaluation system for NAIMDs differs in many ways from those for drugs, but both systems face analogous challenges with respect to monitoring real-world usage. Certain features of the drug safety evaluation process could, if adopted and adapted for NAIMDs, lead to better and more systematic evaluations of the latter.

pharmacology & pharmacy,public, environmental & occupational health,toxicology
The consequences of the new European reclassification of non-invasive brain stimulation devices and the medical device regulations pose an existential threat to research and treatment: An invited opinion paper

Andrea Antal,Ana Ganho-Ávila,Sara Assecondi,Tracy Barbour,Jovana Bjekić,Daniel M Blumberger,Nadia Bolognini,Jerome Brunelin,Lorena Chanes,Matthew Dale,Raffaele Dubbioso,Giordano D'Urso,Igor Filipcic,Saša R Filipović,Marco Hirnstein,Femke Konings,Berthold Langguth,Letizia Leocani,Majid Memarian Sorkhabi,Marc Mulder,Mika Nikander,Rafal Nowak,Antonio Oliviero,Balder Onarheim,Jacinta O'Shea,Stefano Pallanti,Fady Rachid,Joana Rajão-Saraiva,Simone Rossi,Alexander T Sack,Anne Sauvaget,Rik van der Scheer,Klaus Schellhorn,Aureli Soria-Frisch,David Szekely,Hatice Tankisi,Paul Cj Taylor,Indira Tendolkar,Susanne Uusitalo,Chris Baeken

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2024.03.039

Abstract:A significant amount of European basic and clinical neuroscience research includes the use of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and low intensity transcranial electrical stimulation (tES), mainly transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Two recent changes in the EU regulations, the introduction of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) (2017/745) and the Annex XVI have caused significant problems and confusions in the brain stimulation field. The negative consequences of the MDR for non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) have been largely overlooked and until today, have not been consequently addressed by National Competent Authorities, local ethical committees, politicians and by the scientific communities. In addition, a rushed bureaucratic decision led to seemingly wrong classification of NIBS products without an intended medical purpose into the same risk group III as invasive stimulators. Overregulation is detrimental for any research and for future developments, therefore researchers, clinicians, industry, patient representatives and an ethicist were invited to contribute to this document with the aim of starting a constructive dialogue and enacting positive changes in the regulatory environment.
Navigating the U.S. regulatory landscape for neurologic digital health technologies

Neil A. Busis,Dilshad Marolia,Robert Montgomery,Laura J. Balcer,Steven L. Galetta,Scott N. Grossman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-024-01098-5

IF: 15.2

2024-04-13

npj Digital Medicine

Abstract:Digital health technologies (DHTs) can transform neurological assessments, improving quality and continuity of care. In the United States, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety and efficacy of these technologies, employing a detailed regulatory process that classifies devices based on risk and requires rigorous review and post-market surveillance. Following FDA approval, DHTs enter the Current Procedural Terminology, Relative Value Scale Update Committee, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services coding and valuation processes leading to coverage and payment decisions. DHT adoption is challenged by rapid technologic advancements, an inconsistent evidence base, marketing discrepancies, ambiguous coding guidance, and variable health insurance coverage. Regulators, policymakers, and payers will need to develop better methods to evaluate these promising technologies and guide their deployment. This includes striking a balance between patient safety and clinical effectiveness versus promotion of innovation, especially as DHTs increasingly incorporate artificial intelligence. Data validity, cybersecurity, risk management, societal, and ethical responsibilities should be addressed. Regulatory advances can support adoption of these promising tools by ensuring DHTs are safe, effective, accessible, and equitable.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Integrated Devices: A New Regulatory Pathway to Promote Revolutionary Innovation

TED CHO,VRUSHAB GOWDA,HENNING SCHULZRINNE,BRIAN J. MILLER

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12692

2024-01-24

Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:Policy Points Current medical device regulatory frameworks date back half a century and are ill suited for the next generation of medical devices that involve a significant software component. Existing Food and Drug Administration efforts are insufficient because of a lack of statutory authority, whereas international examples offer lessons for improving and harmonizing domestic medical device regulatory policy. A voluntary alternative pathway built upon two‐stage review with individual component review followed by holistic review for integrated devices would provide regulators with new tools to address a changing medical device marketplace

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Regulatory Framework for Drug-Device Combination Products in the United States, Europe, and Korea

Joo Hee Kim,Sera Kwon,Ju Eun Seol,Mi Hye Kim,Su Dong Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00661-2

2024-05-10

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Abstract:Combination products (CPs) combine two or more product types such as drugs, devices, and/or biological products for increased safety and clinical effectiveness. The emergence of innovative CPs poses new challenges for regulatory agencies in assigning jurisdiction for premarket review and oversight. In US, the 1990 Safe Medical Devices Act defines and provides classification criteria for CPs, and the US government has developed a regulatory process through multiple acts, including the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016. Meanwhile, regulators in the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Korea have recently recognized the importance of premarket pathways for CPs. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued guidelines and explanations on compliance issues related to drug–device CPs under MDR. EMA doesn't have the definitions of CPs, but uses the term drug–device combination products (drug-device CPs). CPs are categorized as drugs or medical devices, which follow their relevant regulatory framework. The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) in Korea has legal definitions of CPs under the Notice of the MFDS. CPs are designated as drugs or medical devices according to their primary mode of actions (PMOA) and follow regulatory processes through the framework of drugs or medical devices. This study aims to comprehensively summarize the regulatory oversight of CPs by analyzing the regulatory policies and legal frameworks in the US, the EU, and Korea. The regulatory challenges encountered when developing CPs are also discussed. With specific emphasis on the combination of drugs and devices, this study provides in-depth insights into the regulatory landscape, shedding light on the unique challenges associated with the development of CPs for this particular intersection of drugs and devices.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
[Interpretation of the International Standard 2017 Version of Implantable Neurostimulators].

Weiming Wang,Luming Li,Qingfeng Li,Chunhua Hu,Bing Li,Hongwei Hao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-7104.2018.02.015

2018-01-01

Abstract:ISO 14708-3 "Implants for surgery-active implantable medical devices-Part 3:implantable neurostimulators" 2017 version and 2008 version are compared, and changes in the standard are interpreted combined with the characteristics of the neurostimulator. The new version of the standard for the first time in the introduction mentioned a new type of non-electrode or extension's neurostimulator. Key issues that have significant impact on safety concerns such as wireless charging temperature rise, MRI acceptance criteria, etc., are given for the first time in the new version. New requirements to the wireless communication section are added, and the electromagnetic compatibility part is greatly adjusted. With more miniature non-electrode or extension's neurostimulator entering the market, standards such as electromagnetic compatibility and MRI, there will be greater adjustments.

A new morphologic classification of congenital tracheobronchial stenosis.

Improving Medical Device Regulation: The United States and Europe in Perspective

Regulation and Clinical Investigation of Medical Device in the European Union

The new regulation of non-medical neurotechnologies in the European Union: overview and reflection

PRE-MARKET CLINICAL EVALUATIONS OF INNOVATIVE HIGH-RISK MEDICAL DEVICES IN EUROPE

Regulatory perspectives on post-market evidence generation schemes for high-risk medical devices: a systematic review

Comparison of approval procedures for medical devices in Europe and the USA

POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF RECLASSIFICATION OF NON-INVASIVE BRAIN STIMULATING AS A CLASS III MEDICAL DEVICES IN EUROPE AND ITS REFLECTIONS TO OUR COUNTRY

The Difference between Approval Processes for Medicinal Products and Medical Devices in Europe

FDA Regulation of Neurological and Physical Medicine Devices: Access to Safe and Effective Neurotechnologies for All Americans

Regulation of orthopaedic devices: Future implications for research and innovation

Challenges for clinical translation of long-acting and implantable drug delivery systems

Innovation and regulation in human implant technologies: developing comparative approaches

Review of U.S. Medical Device Regulation

Factors That Facilitate Regulatory Approval for Drug-Device Combination Products in the European Union and United States of America: A Mixed Method Study of Industry Views

Evaluating the Safety Profile of Non-Active Implantable Medical Devices Compared with Medicines

The consequences of the new European reclassification of non-invasive brain stimulation devices and the medical device regulations pose an existential threat to research and treatment: An invited opinion paper

Navigating the U.S. regulatory landscape for neurologic digital health technologies

Integrated Devices: A New Regulatory Pathway to Promote Revolutionary Innovation

Regulatory Framework for Drug-Device Combination Products in the United States, Europe, and Korea

[Interpretation of the International Standard 2017 Version of Implantable Neurostimulators].