EU's Medical Device Expert Panels: Analysis of Membership and Published Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) Results

Watson, Colleen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00632-7
2024-06-11
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science
Abstract:The new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) places greater importance on the role of clinical evidence to establish safety and performance. Article 54 of the MDR calls for expert committees to independently review the scientific, technical, and clinical evidence supporting the market authorization of certain novel devices independently from the established process of Notified Body reviews. These experts provide a review and opinion that ultimately is taken into consideration alongside the information reviewed by the Notified Body during the review process. Four expert committees (General and Plastic Surgery and Dentistry; Orthopaedics, Traumatology, Rehabilitation, Rheumatology; Circulatory System; and Neurology) have published at least one Scientific Opinion (SO) under the Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) in 2021–2022.
pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The paper attempts to address whether the composition and capabilities of expert committees under the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) meet regulatory requirements when evaluating high-risk medical devices. Specifically, the paper focuses on the following aspects: 1. **Composition of Expert Committees**: The study examined the professional backgrounds and technical capabilities of members from four expert committees (Neurology, Orthopedics, Circulatory System, General/Plastic Surgery, and Dentistry). It found that these committees are primarily composed of members with clinical expertise, but there are fewer experts in technical and biological fields. 2. **Content of the Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP)**: The analysis of ten Scientific Opinions (SO) issued by these committees revealed that the opinions mainly focus on clinical evidence, with less discussion on technical or biological aspects. 3. **Consistency with Regulatory Requirements and Actual Practice**: The paper explored whether the actual work of the expert committees aligns with the objectives set out in Article 54 and Section 5.1 of Annex IX of the MDR, specifically whether they comprehensively assess the risks and benefits of new complex devices. In summary, the core issue of the paper is whether the current composition and focus of the expert committees can meet the MDR's requirements for comprehensive risk assessment of high-risk medical devices. Relying solely on clinical evaluation may overlook technical and biological risks associated with new materials or software designs. Therefore, the paper suggests expanding the range of expertise within the expert committees to better cover all relevant fields of knowledge.