Search

The globalization and rapid advancements in medical technologies necessitate the harmonization of international regulatory frameworks to ensure the efficient and timely clinical application of medical products, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Regulatory reliance, a critical component of this harmonization process, is a powerful tool that provides efficient access for economic entities and regulatory authorities, promoting predictable decision-making and accelerating approvals. The Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) serves as a regulatory reliance framework for medical device inspections. Implemented by countries including Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil, MDSAP allows third-party certification bodies, recognized by these regulatory authorities, to conduct audits on medical device manufacturers. The outcomes of these audits are shared with the regulatory authorities, who use them for regulatory assessments and decision-making. Since transitioning to its implementation phase in 2017, MDSAP has been widely utilized in various countries. This review provides an overview of the adoption and utilization of MDSAP in major countries, exploring the program's impact on regulatory processes and its potential as a method of regulatory reliance to facilitate timely access to effective and safe medical devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The FDA published a final rule for Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests in the Federal Register on May 6, 2024, which aims to ensure the safety and effectiveness of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) by amending current regulations. The rule also includes a policy to phase out the FDA's general enforcement discretion approach for LDTs, aligning them with other In Vitro Diagnostic Devices. Notably, direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing is exempt from this policy shift, as the FDA believes this category of tests has already met applicable requirements. This rule was first proposed in the Federal Register on October 3, 2023. The publication of this proposed rule sparked a considerable volume of public reactions during the comment period of the rule-making process, comprising general sentiment, key concerns, and suggestions. This commentary analyzes these concerns, particularly focusing on DTC tests, and offers recommendations, including reassessing the FDA's enforcement discretion for hybrid DTC tests, advocating for clear guidance on clinical oversight, and prioritizing a risk-based enforcement approach. Additionally, enhancing public education about the risks of DTC testing is crucial for safeguarding public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Novel products applying artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods to digital pathology images are touted to have many uses and benefits. However, publicly available information for products can be variable, with few sources of independent evidence. This review aimed to identify public evidence for AI-based products for digital pathology. Key features of products on the European Economic Area/Great Britain (EEA/GB) markets were examined, including their regulatory approval, intended use, and published validation studies. There were 26 AI-based products that met the inclusion criteria and, of these, 24 had received regulatory approval via the self-certification route as General in vitro diagnostic (IVD) medical devices. Only 10 of the products (38%) had peer-reviewed internal validation studies and 11 products (42%) had peer-reviewed external validation studies. To support transparency an online register was developed using identified public evidence (https://osf.io/gb84r/), which we anticipate will provide an accessible resource on novel devices and support decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital medical devices (DMDs) present unique opportunities in their regulation and reimbursement. A dynamic landscape of DMD assessment frameworks is emerging within the European Union, with five clusters of prevailing approaches identified. Despite notable gaps in maturity levels, cross-country learning effects are becoming prevalent. We expect more countries, both within the EU and beyond, to follow the steps of current frontrunners, hence expediting the harmonization process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) experience high symptom burden, severe illness, and frequent deterioration in quality of life. Women with COPD represent a unique population with potential unmet care needs yet remain underrepresented in palliative care (PC) literature. The purpose of this study was to investigate specific needs of women with COPD, learn how COPD symptoms impact women, and explore factors related to PC knowledge, access, and barriers. A total of 30 individuals were enrolled in this prospective, single-arm multimethod study, using an adapted Maslow's hierarchy of needs framework. Fifteen participated in semistructured interviews. Women with advanced COPD identified care needs and barriers including access to medications/oxygen and resources (pulmonary rehabilitation/support groups), information about disease/treatment, and effect of weather conditions on symptoms. Some participants were not under the direct care of a pulmonologist but recognized the importance of their services. None of the participants had been referred to or received PC. This study provides evidence that women have unmet care needs, high symptom burden, and disease uncertainty. Women with COPD should have the opportunity to have the supportive care that PC offers. Palliative care and hospice nurses have opportunities to address unmet care needs, increased symptom burden, and disease uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Raman spectroscopy is a label-free optical method that has proven its suitability for the discrimination between cancerous and noncancerous tissue. Bladder cancer diagnosis typically relies on excisional biopsies and histopathology, which are considered the gold standard. Here, we want to use an endoscopic setup to demonstrate the applicability of Raman spectroscopy in a clinical in vivo setting. In the European Union, the regulatory framework is given by the Medical Device Regulation. We describe the path and the necessary effort to be able to conduct a clinical investigation within this framework. The aim of this clinical examination was to perform Raman spectroscopy in the living bladder and to record Raman spectra of normal and tumorous bladder tissue and to determine the degree of bladder tumor in a post-processing step. The open prospective study includes 21 patients and presents preliminary results for the diagnostic abilities of our approach. This work reports on an in vivo Raman-based endoscopy system, invaScope, enabling Raman measurements of healthy and tumor bladder tissue during an endoscopic procedure in the operating theatre. The presented study outlines the progression from the initial concept (validated through previously performed ex vivo studies) to the approval and implementation of a clinical investigational device according to the requirement within the framework of the European Medical Device Regulation (MDR2017/745). The study's primary objective was to employ the invaScope Raman system within the bladder, capturing in vivo spectroscopic Raman data followed by standard histo- and cytopathological examinations of urological tissue (considered the gold standard). The collected data were analyzed and correlated with histopathological findings post-procedure. Additionally, the study aimed to assess the feasibility of using diagnostic equipment, probes, and software for application in a clinical setting, evaluating usability aspects that are important during surgical procedures. This research represents a pivotal step toward advancing Raman spectroscopy for routine clinical use in characterizing bladder lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The newly adopted EU AI Act represents a pivotal milestone that heralds a new era of AI regulation across industries. With its broad territorial scope and applicability, this comprehensive legislation establishes stringent requirements for AI systems. In this article, we analyze the AI Act's impact on digital medical products, such as medical devices: How does the AI Act apply to AI/ML-enabled medical devices? How are they classified? What are the compliance requirements? And, what are the obligations of 'providers' of these AI systems? After addressing these foundational questions, we discuss the AI Act's broader implications for the future of regulated digital medical products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health-care technology is central to boosting the productivity and quality of health-care systems. In many sub-Saharan African countries, however, medical device management systems are weak or absent. The aim of this article is to illustrate, using a case study, how policy reforms can help ensure policy on health-care technology is translated into everyday practice and how an integrated systems approach can enhance the operation of medical device management. Between 2011 and 2023, a plan to improve medical device management systems in the United Republic of Tanzania was developed and implemented through Swiss--Tanzanian cooperation within the Health Promotion and System Strengthening Project. The availability of biomedical engineers was increased through new training courses and the creation of permanent positions in government. Moreover, additional district and regional maintenance and repair workshops were built, and a National Centre for Calibration and Training was established to ensure the correct functioning of medical devices. The introduction of an electronic medical device management system provided health facilities and the health ministry with data on the operational status of medical devices and the need for repairs and spare parts. Every level of government was encouraged to allocate more human and financial resources to medical device management. Following this decade-long effort, the percentage of functioning equipment increased substantially, and costs were reduced by repairing rather than replacing equipment. The project also demonstrated the value of an integrated, system-strengthening approach that considered personnel, maintenance and repair facilities, documentation and management, and government policy and budgeting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 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. Methods: The four expert committees with published CECP opinions were reviewed to assess the academic backgrounds and professional expertise of each member with respect to clinical, technical, and biological domains on a 0–2 scale for each domain. A content review was conducted on the 10 CECP opinions published by these committees to assess their consistency with the goals and outcome expectations set by the MDR. The extent of content related to each of the clinical, technical, and biological domains was also assessed on a 0–2 scale. Results: All committees were composed primarily by members with strong clinical expertise, but only a few had strong technical and biological expertise. Across committees, the average scores of members related to academic background and professional expertise both ranged from 1.64 to 2.00 in the clinical domain, but only 0–0.15 and 0.15–0.69, respectively, in the biological domain, and 0.12–0.55 and 0.23–0.73, respectively, in the technical domain. A content review for the 10 SOs showed that all opinions focused exclusively or primarily on the clinical evidence. Three contained a modest amount of additional text directed at technical/engineering issues and five at biological issues. Conclusion: Expert committees are composed predominantly of expert clinical reviewers but have many fewer members with significant technical or biological expertise. This may limit the ability of the committees to evaluate the significant technical and biological risks that are often best understood by preclinical testing. Broadening the expertise across the committees may improve the depth of their benefit/risk critiques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although a variety of drug delivery devices have been launched in recent years, few studies have comprehensively investigated the market trends of combination drugs and medical devices approved or certified in Japan and the regulatory challenges related to their approval. Among the drug delivery devices, autoinjectors are more convenient than traditional prefilled syringes and are designed with safety features to prevent needlestick accidents, allowing self-injection by patients. Therefore, autoinjectors have been incorporated into the treatment of various diseases and have shown significant growth among drug delivery devices. Aim: This study aimed to investigate the market trends of combination drugs approved in Japan, especially those with autoinjector formulations, and to explore the challenges in the regulatory aspects of combination drugs. Methods: Information on the number of marketed drugs and medical devices was obtained from the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) database using specific definitions. We looked at the annual changes in the number of drug delivery devices approved and certified as combination drugs or medical devices and the number of canceled certifications. We also examined the classification and main certification criteria for Japanese medical device nomenclature. Results: The study suggested that the number of combination drugs with autoinjector formulations is increasing, replacing previously approved or certified pen-type medication injectors. Moreover, 53% of all drug products were approved for autoinjector formulations after the initial authorization approval in Japan, and more than half of them obtained approval for additional formulations for autoinjectors within five years of the initial authorization approval, with the largest number of cases obtaining approval for additional formulations two years later. Conclusion: The lack of clear regulatory requirements for autoinjectors may lead to confusion among applicants. Furthermore, there are challenges in filing regulatory applications, thus hindering the rapid launch of combination drugutilizing devices with superior usability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research presents the results of a study about people with failed metal-on-metal hip implants, and draws on the STS concept of the technological imperative alongside research on the value of patient knowledge in clinical settings and the legitimacy of embodied stories. Popularly understood as positive and life changing, hip replacement surgery was hailed as 'the operation of the century', until a series of widespread failures of hundreds of thousands of hip implants, known collectively as metal-on-metal (MoM) hips, drew attention to the poor regulation of medical implants. This paper argues that poor regulation intersects with narratives of patients' pain, which are obstructed by surgeons and the UK regulatory body, with the effect of denying both patients' embodied experiences of implant failure, and their restitution to good health. Patient narratives about problems with their hip implant are the wellspring from which scientific evidence emerges which can indicate widespread implant failure. By obstructing these narratives the regulatory system undermines the very evidence it needs to operate effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The classification of medical devices by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) involves rigorous scrutiny from specialized panels that designate devices as Class I, II, or III depending on their levels of relative risk to patient health. Posterior rigid pedicle screw systems were first classified by the FDA in 1984 and have since revolutionized the treatment of many spine pathologies. Despite this early classification by the FDA, posterior cervical pedicle and lateral mass screws were not reclassified from unclassified to Class III and then to Class II until 2019, nearly 35 years after their initial classification. This reclassification process involved a decades-long interplay between the FDA, formal panels, manufacturers, academic leaders, practicing physicians, and patients. It was delayed by lawsuits and a paucity of data demonstrating the ability to improve outcomes for cervical spinal pathologies. The off-label use of thoracolumbar pedicle screw rigid fixation systems by early adopters assisted manufacturers and professional organizations in providing the necessary data for the reclassification process. This case study highlights the collaboration between physicians and professional organizations in facilitating FDA reclassification and underscores changes to the current classification process that could avoid the prolonged dichotomy between common medical practice and FDA guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital health technology (DHT) is increasingly used to facilitate the conduct of clinical drug trials. The European regulatory environment would benefit from some adjustments to realize the full potential of DHTs. Considering current discussions such as the European Accelerating Clinical Trial Initiative (ACT EU), we propose four concrete adjustments to this regulatory landscape to introduce risk-based qualification approaches for DHTs. In our view, these changes would have the potential to facilitate the use of DHT in clinical research and thus provide access to innovative therapies in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recent authorization of DermaSensor, an AI-enabled device for skin cancer detection in primary care, marks a pivotal moment in digital health innovation. Clinically, the authorization of the first AI-enabled device for use by non-specialists for detecting skin cancer reinforces the feasibility of digital health technologies to bridge gaps in access and expertise in medical practice. The authorization also establishes a new regulatory precedent for FDA authorization of medical devices incorporating AI and machine learning (ML) technologies within dermatology. Together, this article uses the DermaSensor authorization to examine the clinical evidence and regulatory implications of emerging AI-enabled technologies in dermatology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Policy PointsCurrent 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 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To interpret the Medical Device Regulation for occupational therapists in the Netherlands involved in prescribing and manufacturing custom-made assistive devices and to develop a roadmap for implementation. Four online iterative co-design workshops were organized under supervision of a senior quality manager to assist in the interpretation of the MDR framework with a focus on custom-made assistive devices; and to assist the implementation by generating guidelines and forms. The workshops for seven participating occupational therapists had an interactive character with Q&A, small and homework assignments, and oral evaluations. Next to occupational therapists, participants with different backgrounds joined such as 3D printing experts, engineers, managers, and researchers. The participants experienced the interpretation of the MDR as informative, but also as complex. Complying with the MDR requires considerable documentation activities that are currently not part of care professionals tasks. This initially raised concerns regarding implementation in daily practice. To facilitate the MDR implementation, forms were created and evaluated for a selected design case together with the participants for future reference. Additionally, instructions were given which forms should be filled out only once per organization, which forms could be reused for similar types of custom-made devices, and which forms should be filled out for each individual custom-made device. This study provides practical guidelines and forms to support occupational therapists in the Netherlands to prescribe and manufacture custom-made medical devices complying with the MDR. It is recommended to involve engineers and/or quality managers in this process. Occupational therapists are considered legal manufacturer when they prescribe and manufacture custom-made medical devices for their clients. As such they are legally obliged to meet the Medical Device Regulation (MDR). When designing and manufacturing "in-house" custom-made medical devices, care organizations need to follow and document activities to demonstrate compliance with the MDR. This study offers practical guidelines and forms to facilitate this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trustworthy medical AI requires transparency about the development and testing of underlying algorithms to identify biases and communicate potential risks of harm. Abundant guidance exists on how to achieve transparency for medical AI products, but it is unclear whether publicly available information adequately informs about their risks. To assess this, we retrieved public documentation on the 14 available CE-certified AI-based radiology products of the II b risk category in the EU from vendor websites, scientific publications, and the European EUDAMED database. Using a self-designed survey, we reported on their development, validation, ethical considerations, and deployment caveats, according to trustworthy AI guidelines. We scored each question with either 0, 0.5, or 1, to rate if the required information was "unavailable", "partially available," or "fully available." The transparency of each product was calculated relative to all 55 questions. Transparency scores ranged from 6.4% to 60.9%, with a median of 29.1%. Major transparency gaps included missing documentation on training data, ethical considerations, and limitations for deployment. Ethical aspects like consent, safety monitoring, and GDPR-compliance were rarely documented. Furthermore, deployment caveats for different demographics and medical settings were scarce. In conclusion, public documentation of authorized medical AI products in Europe lacks sufficient public transparency to inform about safety and risks. We call on lawmakers and regulators to establish legally mandated requirements for public and substantive transparency to fulfill the promise of trustworthy AI for health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Legal Innovations" in the Journal for Medical and Health Law reports on various legislative changes in the field of healthcare in Austria. Changes in professional law, medical products, social law, and sanitary law are presented. Among other things, new framework conditions for the competencies and qualification certificates of healthcare and nursing professionals are created, an apprenticeship for nursing assistance and nursing specialist assistance is introduced, and a federal law on the establishment of a federal crisis camp for the healthcare sector is enacted. Further changes concern the pharmacy and pharmaceutical law, primary care law, and the parent-child passport law. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court in Austria has ruled that there is official liability for faulty official actions according to the Medical Devices Act. It has been determined that omission can also be considered as unlawful and negligent organizational action if there was a duty to act and proper action could have prevented the occurrence of damage. In the present case, a plaintiff suffered physical and mental pain due to a material defect in the use of a coil. The Federal Office for Safety in Health Care (BASG) is accused of unlawfully and negligently failing to take the necessary measures to prevent damage caused by defective coils. It is emphasized that the obligations of legal entities are determined in the interest of the general public and the affected patients. The BASG is responsible for monitoring the safety and quality of medical devices and has the duty to prevent harm to patients, users, and third parties. [Extracted from the article]

Every year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clears approximately 3,000 medical devices for marketing via the 510(k) pathway. These constitute 99% of all devices approved for human use and includes the premarket review of many devices incorporating newer technology such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and other software. As the complexity of these novel technologies and the number of applications is expected to increase in the coming years, statutory changes such as the 2016 21st Century Cures Act, regulations, and guidance documents have increased both the volume and complexity of device review. Thus, the ability to streamline the review of less complex, low-to-moderate risk devices through the 510(k) pathway will maximize the FDA's capability to address other important, future-oriented regulatory questions. For over twenty five years, third party review organizations have served a defined function to assist with the review of 510(k) applications for a set of enumerated device classes. This paper reviews the history of FDA device regulation, the evolution of the 510(k) review pathway, and the recent history of the 510(k) third party review program. Finally, the paper addresses policy concerns from all stakeholders – including the FDA – along with policy suggestions to improve the third party review program and FDA device regulation writ large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commercial software based on artificial intelligence (AI) is entering clinical practice in neuroradiology. Consequently, medico-legal aspects of using Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) become increasingly important. These medico-legal issues warrant an interdisciplinary approach and may affect the way we work in daily practice. In this article, we seek to address three major topics: medical malpractice liability, regulation of AI-based medical devices, and privacy protection in shared medical imaging data, thereby focusing on the legal frameworks of the European Union and the USA. As many of the presented concepts are very complex and, in part, remain yet unsolved, this article is not meant to be comprehensive but rather thought-provoking. The goal is to engage clinical neuroradiologists in the debate and equip them to actively shape these topics in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article articulates core facility recommendations for regulated health care providers and professionals performing medical aesthetic procedures involving the use of topical and local anesthesia in a private clinic setting in Canada. The recommendations help ensure patient safety, confidentiality, and ethics. Information is provided about the setting/environment where medical aesthetic procedures are performed, safety equipment and emergency medications that should be on-site for medical aesthetic procedures, infection prevention and control measures, the way that medications and medical supplies should be stored, how to handle biomedical hazardous waste, and how to protect patient information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union Medical Device Regulations 2017/745 entered into force on May 2021 with changes related to strengthening the clinical evaluation requirements, particularly for high-risk devices. This study investigates how the increased requirements on medical device manufacturers in relation to how clinical evaluation will challenge manufacturers. A quantitative survey study was utilized with responses from 68 senior or functional area subject matter experts working in medical device manufacturing Regulatory or Quality roles. The findings from the study demonstrated that the highest source of reactive Post-Market Surveillance data was customer complaints and proactive data were Post-Market Clinical Follow-Up. In contrast, the top 3 sources for generating clinical evaluation data for legacy devices under the new Medical Device Regulations were Post-Market Surveillance data, Scientific literature reviews, and Post-Market Clinical Follow-Up studies. Manufacturers' biggest challenge under the new Medical Device Regulations is determining the amount of data needed to generate sufficient clinical evidence, while over 60% of high-risk device manufacturers have outsourced the writing of their clinical evaluation reports. Manufacturers also reported a high investment in clinical evaluation training and highlighted inconsistencies in the requirements for clinical data by different notified bodies. These challenges may lead to a potential shortage of certain medical devices in the E.U. and a delay in access to new devices, negatively impacting patient quality of life (1). This study provides a unique insight into the challenges currently experienced by medical device manufacturers as they transition to the MDR clinical evaluation requirements and the subsequent impact on the continued availability of medical devices in the E.U. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The EU Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 defines new rules for the certification and post-market surveillance of medical devices (MD), including an additional review by Expert Panels of clinical evaluation data for high-risk MD if reports and alerts suggest possibly associated increased risks. Within the EU-funded CORE-MD project, our aim was to develop a tool to support such process in which web-accessible safety notices (SN) are automatically retrieved and aggregated based on their specific MD categories and the European Medical Device Nomenclature (EMDN) classification by applying an Entity Resolution (ER) approach to enrich data integrating different sources. The performance of such approach was tested through a pilot study on the Italian data. Methods: Information relevant to 7622 SN from 2009 to 2021 was retrieved from the Italian Ministry of Health website by Web scraping. For incomplete EMDN data (68%), the MD best match was searched within a list of about 1.5 M MD on the Italian market, using Natural Language Processing techniques and pairwise ER. The performance of this approach was tested on the 2440 SN (32%) already provided with the EMDN code as reference standard. Results: The implemented ER method was able to correctly assign the correct manufacturer to the MD in each SN in 99% of the cases. Moreover, the correct EMDN code at level 1 was assigned in 2382 SN (97.62%), at level 2 in 2366 SN (96.97%) and at level 3 in 2329 SN (95.45%). Conclusion: The proposed approach was able to cope with the incompleteness of the publicly available data in the SN. In this way, grouping of SN relevant to a specific MD category/group/type could be used as possible sentinel for increased rates in reported serious incidents in high-risk MD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present here results from studies on the development of a high-tech product — a vibrothermostat to prepare samples and run reactions using immunology test plates — for research and biochemical, immunological, medical diagnostic, etc. analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the development of permanent transvenous cardiac pacing in the 1960s, the costs of pacemakers quickly led to their reuse in both developed countries and in low‐and middle‐income countries (LMIC). Legal, ethical, and industrial factors gradually resulted in the termination of reuse in developed countries. Without health care budgets to pay for costly pacemaker technologies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and other groups have provided support to physicians and hospitals treating patients with heart block in LMICs. Multiple other academic and private groups have also assisted such patients in LMICs. Pacemaker companies have provided physicians and hospitals with new devices (that have an expired package date or through charitable donations). Greater care of preparing and cleaning refurbished devices have demonstrated overwhelmingly the safety and effectiveness of reused devices. More recently, cardiac resynchronization therapy and implantable cardioverter‐defibrillators have also been reused in patients in LMICs. While the globalization of noncommunicable diseases continues, patients with rhythm disorders in LMICs can no longer be left behind. While patients in developed countries only receive new devices to treat rhythm disorders, the practice of reused cardiac implantable electronic devices will expand in LMICs, until equal access to device technologies be made available to all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the threat to the accessibility of emergency contraception (EC) due to bans or restrictions in some of the U.S. states, as well as lack of knowledge and misinformation among some healthcare providers. It mentions potential solutions to improve access to EC, such as vending machines on campuses, advance provision of EC, and educational resources for healthcare providers.

The article focuses on recent recalls issued by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), including laundry detergent packets, youth sipper bottles, and Mario Kart ride-on racer cars, due to safety concerns such as potential choking hazards and mechanical malfunctions. Consumers are urged to stop using these products and follow instructions for refunds or replacements provided by the manufacturers.

Mobile apps are the primary means by which consumers access digital health and wellness software, with delivery dominated by the 'Apple App Store' and the 'Google Play Store'. Through these virtual storefronts Apple and Google act as the distributor (and sometimes, importer) of many thousands of health and wellness apps into the EU, some of which have a medical purpose. As a result of changes to EU law which came into effect in May 2021, they must now ensure that apps are compliant with medical devices regulation and to inform authorities of serious incidents arising from their use. The extent to which these new rules are being complied with in practice is uneven, and in some areas unclear. In light of EU legislation related to competition, which came into effect in November 2022, it is also unclear how conflicts of interest can be managed between Apple and Google's roles as gateway duopoly importers and distributors whilst also developers of their own competitive health products. Finally, with the proposed European health data space regulation, wellness apps will be voluntarily registered and labelled in a fashion more like medical devices than consumer software. We explore the implications of these new regulations and propose future models that could resolve the apparent conflicts. All stakeholders would benefit from improved app store models to sustainably evolve safer, better, and fairer provision of digital health applications in the EU. As EU legislation comes into force it could serve as a template for other regions globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On May 26th 2017 the European Parliament and the Council of The European Union adopted the new regulation on in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR)‐Regulation EU 2017/746‐planned to be applied from May 26th 2022 in substitution to the previous IVD directives (IVDD 98/79 EC). After several health and legal causes due to medical device malfunctions, the European Union (EU) extensively reviewed the previous regulatory, which had remained unchanged since 1998. Aim of the work is to analyse the effects of the new IVDR on the field of haemostasis and thrombosis testing with particular attention to specific clinical conditions. Clinical laboratories will mainly deal with three different situations: (1) Diagnostic test performed with IVDR products used according with clinical indication certified by manufacturers. (2) Diagnostic test performed with certified IVDR products without clinical validation. (3) Diagnostic test performed with reagents classified as Research Use Only (RUO). At present, only few clinical laboratories through different European countries have been prepared to the new IVDR, while many laboratories are not yet aware about crucial aspects of the new process that deeply involves laboratory medicine. In conclusion, each laboratory should be aware of the IVDR certification of the reagents/instruments used in its laboratory. There are several urgent needs regarding IVDR certification: studies about the clinical performance of haemostasis tests, guidelines for LDTs (definition and documentation), internal and external quality controls for the tests recommended/suggested in the guidance/guidelines and finally implementation and/or update of clinical and laboratory guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rapid innovation and proliferation of software as a medical device have accelerated the clinical use of digital technologies across a wide array of medical conditions. Current regulatory pathways were developed for traditional (hardware) medical devices and offer a useful structure, but the evolution of digital devices requires concomitant innovation in regulatory approaches to maximize the potential benefits of these emerging technologies. A number of specific adaptations could strengthen current regulatory oversight while promoting ongoing innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Regulatory frameworks surrounding medical devices (MDs) and medical locations are of utter importance for safeguarding patients and users, and for granting a universal access to healthcare. Currently, as the main existing regulatory frameworks are drafted by high-income countries, they pretend to be general and applicable globally, but fail to understand particular contexts, specifically those in low-resource settings (LRSs), resulting, therefore, inapplicable. In particular, LRSs present a varied situation, with legal transplants of guidelines from their previous colonial regimes. This apparently theoretical issue, is, effectively, a tangible and rising matter of concern, given the ever-increasing number of MD patent applications per year, as well as the appearance of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on the MD market itself. This article will focus on the European Regulation on MDs 745/2017 and its applicability in LRSs, specifically presenting the case of Benin, a Sub-Saharan African country.Methods: This work is based on a field study conducted in 2019 in Benin, which is particularly exemplar to show the complexity of the "legal transplantation" concept. A multidisciplinary approach, comprising the standard tools and methods of ethics, law, and biomedical engineering, was used to draft a heuristic hermeneutic framework, and to analyse related bioethical issues concerning Medical Device Regulations (MDRs) in LRSs, the role of Maintenance, and other sociological questions; as well as the rural population's perception on MDs and health technologies, and the role of ethics in the hospitals of LRSs.Results: The definition of these themes helped approach the local perspective and define the research questions. Downstream of the analysis of the Medical Devices Regulations, the Maintenance and other bioethical issues in Benin, the heuristic hermeneutic framework was created to guide a shift in the paradigm of law and regulation making, so as to make them more contextualised and inclusive, globally.Conclusion: This article proposes a framework that will help policymakers take into account the particularism of each context, especially those of the most vulnerable countries, when drafting and issuing regulatory frameworks, promoting an ever-evolving model of universalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs about the European database for medical devices will be fully usable until 2026 as the reference laboratory is implementing the in-vitro medical devices Regulation (IVDR). Topics include the European Commission's reaction at the beginning of the corona pandemic and the immediate postponing of the application of the Medical Devices Ordinance (MDR); and the declaration for the use of the majority of medical devices with implementation in national law.

Objectives: To identify the potential opportunities and risks around future UK regulatory reform of medical devices. Design: A mixed methods approach, comprising a rapid literature review, one-to-one, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, a multidisciplinary stakeholder workshop, and a post-workshop survey. Setting: United Kingdom. Participants: 32 key stakeholders across the medical device sector were identified both from the public and private sectors. Results: Opportunities relating to regulatory independence were identified, including the potential to create and implement a regulatory framework that ensures availability of medical devices; innovation and investment potential; and safety to the citizens of the UK. The most significant risks identified included threats to the safety of individual patients and the wider health system arising from the delay in awaiting regulatory approval due to the shortage of approved bodies; and reduced competitiveness of UK market and device manufacturers. Recommendations were identified to mitigate risks, centred on harnessing broader cross-sector collaborations, promoting patient and public partnership, and maximizing international engagement. Conclusions: The UK's medical device sector is at a time-critical juncture to construct a regulatory framework to navigate its exit of Europe and respond to Europe's transition to new medical device regulations whilst also addressing the ongoing demand for rapid approval for new devices in response to the global pandemic. Investment, capacity-building, and international engagement will play a central role in mitigating risks and maximizing opportunities for medical device regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few medical devices are designed and marketed specifically for children. Instead, adult devices are often repurposed and used off-label in pediatrics. The innovation gap between pediatric and adult devices is complex and multifactorial. This review aims to summarize the medical device landscape, describe barriers to pediatric device development, and provide an update on current strategies to help overcome these limitations. Medical devices are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. They are registered, cleared, or approved on the basis of a 3-tier risk classification system and a differentiated set of regulatory pathways. This includes some for products that receive special designations on the basis of specific aspects that warrant more rapid review and approval. Pediatric devices number only one-quarter of those developed for adults for multiple reasons. Clinically, innovators must adjust their products to address the smaller sizes, growth, and longer duration of use in children. Smaller sample sizes and population heterogeneity also challenge the ability to obtain sufficient safety data for regulatory submissions. Financial concerns stem from lower pediatric reimbursement rates coupled with a lack of nationally standardized coverage. There are a number of promising initiatives, including the Pediatric Device Consortia Program, Early Feasibility Studies, and the new System of Hospitals for Innovation in Pediatrics -- Medical Devices. However, the gap will likely not be narrowed without broad cooperation across stakeholders from industry, academia, patient advocacy groups, health care providers, investors, payors, regulators, and Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration encourages the incorporation of the patient voice throughout the medical device total product lifecycle. This study examined the incorporation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments in the evaluation of medical devices over a six-year period. PRO instruments used to inform study endpoints were extracted from the summary documents and clinical trial data of premarket authorizations posted on publicly available FDA databases between October 1, 2014—September 30, 2020. Results: PROs were included in 53% of authorizations, with 34% using PROs as primary and secondary endpoints. This study found that PRO instruments were used in each type of marketing authorization and in all medical specialties examined in this study. Conclusions: Expanding the current collaborative efforts to develop and modify PRO instruments may help to improve use of PROs in medical device evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To allow for adequate and safe reprocessing of reusable medical devices, the device manufacturer should provide instructions for use (IFU). This should include instructions for cleaning, disinfection, packaging and (where sterility is required), a method of sterilization. These instructions should be clear and relevant in the regions where they are marketed. They must not be too vague, however if they are too detailed, reprocessing of the device may be effectively restricted if a very specific process step is not available. This article summarizes IFU requirements for every process step and shows the available options if there are issues with the IFUs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The "right to repair" movement highlights opportunities to reduce health care costs and promote public health resilience through increased competition in the way in which medical devices are serviced and updated over their lifespan. We review legislative and legal facets of third-party repair of medical devices, and conclude with specific recommendations to help this market function more efficiently to the benefit of patients and health care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates medical devices (MD), which are predicated on a concoction of economic and policy forces (e.g., supply/demand, crises, patents), under primarily two administrative circuits: premarketing notifications (PMN) and Approvals (PMAs). This work considers the dynamics of FDA PMNs and PMAs applications as an proxy metric for the evolution of the MD industry, and specifically seeks to test the existence [and, if so, identify the length scale(s)] of economic/business cycles. Beyond summary statistics, the monthly (May, 1976 to December, 2020) number of observed FDA MD Applications are investigated via an assortment of time series techniques (including: discrete wavelet transform, running moving average filter, complete ensemble empirical mode with adaptive noise decomposition, and Seasonal Trend Loess decomposition) to exhaustively seek and find such periodicities. This work finds that from 1976 to 2020, the dynamics of MD applications are (1) non-normal, non-stationary (fractional order of integration < 1), non-linear, and strongly persistent (Hurst > 0.5); (2) regular (non-variance), with latent periodicities following seasonal, 1-year (short-term), 5–6 year (Juglar; mid-term), and a single 24-year (Kuznets; medium-term) period (when considering the total number of MD applications); (3) evolving independently of any specific exogenous factor (such as the COVID-19 crisis); (4) comprised of two inversely opposing processes (PMNs and PMAs) suggesting an intrinsic structural industrial transformation occurring within the MD industry; and, (6) predicted to continue its decline (as a totality) into the mid-2020s until recovery. Ramifications of these findings are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed at the development of a regulatory strategy for compliance of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) with requirements of the Regulation (EU) 2017/746 ("EU-IVDR") under consideration of international requirements for LDTs as established in major regulatory regions. Furthermore, it was analysed in how far elements of current LDT regulation could qualify for an internationally harmonised concept ensuring quality, safety and performance of LDTs. Methods: A review of regulatory literature including legislation as well as guidance documents was performed. The regulatory strategy was adapted from international guidance concepts used for commercially marketed IVD. It was then applied to the example of a large medical laboratory in the EU. A high-level comparison was conducted to identify gaps and matches between the different international regulatory requirements for LDTs. Results: A four-step strategy for compliance of LDTs with the EU IVDR was implemented in an exemplary medical laboratory. On the basis of an internationally used LDT definition, LDTs constitute nearly 50% of the total IVD devices used in the laboratory. While an ISO 15189-compliant QMS is a major component, it should be accompanied by the application of appropriate processes for risk management, performance evaluation and continuous monitoring of LDTs. At least six criteria represent common characteristics of a potential, internationally convergent concept for the regulation/standardization of LDTs. Conclusions: This study confirms the impact of LDTs for individualized and innovative medical laboratory testing. Prerequisites for LDT use as especially given by the IVDR and missing interpretation in the EU with regard to the scope of LDT definition, the application of standards and the extent of documentation for LDTs currently lead to uncertainties for both laboratories and regulatory bodies responsible for LDT oversight. The characteristics identified as common criteria for ensuring quality, safety and performance of LDTs may be considered as central elements of future international consensus guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]