Do you have questions about how to identify meaningful safety and performance measures for the clinical evaluation? What are the best strategies for the verification of device safety and performance? Are you demonstrating that your safety and performance objectives are appropriate and clinically relevant? Do you know how to specify acceptance criteria that are used to determine the acceptability of benefit-risk?
During this presentation, President Laurie Mitchell and Principal Medical Writer, Dr. Sarah Chavez, answer questions on how to identify meaningful safety and performance endpoints, ensure they are appropriate and clinically relevant, how to specify acceptance criteria ranges, and more.
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and teams who develop, write, review or approve Clinical Evaluation or Performance Evaluation Reports for EU MDR or IVDR submissions
Click here to watch the recording!
The newest regulations for medical devices, Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 revision 4, set high standards for confirming safety and performance according to the manufacturer’s Instructions for Use. Previously, regulations under the old MDR and MEDDEV were not as demanding. Also, manufacturers are not accustomed to the current systematic process of CER evaluations.
These relatively new requirements for clinical evaluation extend to manufacturers sending new products into the European market. Additionally, those that are already selling medical devices will have to follow these new requirements. Safety and performance are central components of the evidence-based evaluation process for obtaining and maintaining CE Marking for MDR 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4. Consequently, medical device manufacturers felt the pressure to comply by May 2021.
Read more on this topic in our blog post, here.
Pedantic versus pragmatic implementation of the EU MDR and its guidances, as well as notified bodies struggling with capacity and new processes, are creating a clunky, slow and expensive EU regulatory system that could damage EU industry, delegates heard at the RAPS Convergence meeting earlier this week.
When it comes to guidances supporting the implementation of the Medical Device Regulation, major issues are being created because there is “no real possibility for industry to actively and meaningly engage in drafting EU guidances” and provide input on how to make the new system work efficiently, Elizabeth Gfoeller, corporate director, regulatory affairs at MED-EL, an EU manufacturer of globally marketed hearing loss solutions, told the first day of the meeting on 13 September.
Nearly four months after the full application date of the EU’s Medical Device Regulation, the EU standards bodies have updated the most critical medtech standard to align it with the new EU medtech regulations.
The European standards bodies, CEN and Cenelec, have published an update to the EU medical quality management system standard to link it for the first time with the new Medical Device and IVD Regulations.
EN ISO 13485:2016+A11:2021 features new annexes demonstrating the link between specific clauses of the standard and the general safety and performance requirements (GSPR) of the MDR and IVDR.
An EN ISO standard is an international standard that has been adopted at the level of the EU. The differences are outlined in the foreword and annexes to the EU document which make the link with EU requirements.
Do you have questions about how to identify meaningful safety and performance measures for the clinical evaluation? What are the best strategies for the verification of device safety and performance?
During this 45-minute Q&A session, our President Laurie Mitchell answers questions on how to identify meaningful safety and performance endpoints. In addition she discusses how to demonstrate that S&P endpoints are appropriate and clinically relevant, as well as how to specify acceptance criteria to determine the acceptability of benefit-risk.
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and teams who develop, write, review or approve Clinical Evaluation Reports for EU MDR or IVDR submissions
The newest regulations for medical devices, Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 revision 4, set high standards for confirming safety and performance according to the manufacturer’s Instructions for Use. Previously, regulations under the old MDR and MEDDEV were not as demanding. Also, manufacturers are not accustomed to the current systematic process of CER evaluations.
These relatively new requirements for clinical evaluation extend to manufacturers sending new products into the European market. Additionally, those that are already selling medical devices will have to follow these new requirements. Safety and performance are central components of the evidence-based evaluation process for obtaining and maintaining CE Marking for MDR 2017/745 and MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4. Consequently, medical device manufacturers felt the pressure to comply by May 2021.
Read more on this topic in our blog post, here.
Get a copy of the slides from this webinar or click to watch the recording.
In this second part of our 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge will continue to present strategies for assessing key components of your CER for possible misalignment with key EU MDR requirements. Presented from the perspective of seasoned regulatory writers with deep experience authoring MedDev rev. 4 and MDR-compliant CERs, this practical presentation will help you assess your document through the critical lens of a writer and identify possible gaps for mitigation before prior to submission to regulatory authorities. In this series, we will examine the Clinical Data Sources, Equivalence, and Risk/Benefit Analysis Profile sections of the CER.
In the first webinar of this series, we discussed the State of the Art, Safety & Performance Criteria, Equivalence, and Systematic Literature Review.
Click here to get the slides and watch the recording for part 1.
Key Takeaways:
• Understand the key components of a clinical evaluation report (1-min review of last webinar, clinical evidence, SLR, risk benefit, conclusion – have you ensured that your conclusion reflects conclusions from other sections/data?)
• Determine how to evaluate your CER for key requirements of the MDR
Who should watch this webinar?
Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and regulatory writers who are tasked with the development, writing, review or approval of Clinical Evaluation Reports for EU MDR submission, or anyone interested in learning more about MDR requirements for CERs.
Sign up for future webinars here.
If you enjoyed this webinar and would like a free consultation, please contact us here.
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge breaks down the steps of the SLR process and takes a wholistic approach to conducting an IVDR-compliant SLR. Using case studies, the presentation illustrates the effective use of SLR-derived data to develop the Scientific Validity Report (SVR) and the Clinical Performance Report (CPR).
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we share our insights on using the Systematic
Literature Review (SLR) to Empower Data-Driven Decisions in your Organization.
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
In this webinar, Dr. Sarah Chavez provides an overview of the State of the Art section, and explains how it fits into the overall process of writing a successful, IVDR-compliant Performance Evaluation Report (PER) in a reasonable time frame. A complete readiness assessment and gap analysis will help you identify critical resources, feeder documents, and expertise needed to establish that your IVD may be considered “state-of-the-art.” Ultimately, knowing what the Notified Body expects to see will help you avoid project delays and discover efficiencies in the SOA development process.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we break down the steps of the systematic literature review (SLR) process and take a wholistic approach to conducting an In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR)- compliant SLR.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we cover the state of the art process and how it
fits into the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR).
Fill out this form, or contact us at info@criterionedge.com, and we would be happy to answer any of your questions as well as book you an appointment to discuss your project needs during a time that works for you.
In this discussion, we provide an overview of how to plan and coordinate change within an organization to meet upcoming EU IVDR regulatory requirements. We will be highlighting key steps involved in helping medical affairs transition to a more rigorous regulatory environments, and how to evaluate talent gaps, team leadership composition, and process challenges of your product portfolio.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we share some of the best approaches we have
discovered for Corporate Scientific Communication Strategies.
In this discussion, our panel of proven leaders discuss the key elements that support and propel the innovation process in the medical device, pharmaceutical, and IVD industries. We will be highlighting key areas of the process, important players in the pathway to the market, and how successful innovations spawn new innovations in new markets such as the digital health space, and more.
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar that uncovers what we have learned from our experience in writing Medical Device Regulation (MDR)-compliant Clinical Evaluation Reports (CERs), and how urgently applicable some of these key learnings are in preparing a robust Performance Evaluation Report (PER).
This white paper is a companion piece to our popular webinar where we share some of the biggest issues we have discovered when starting a Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) project, and how to anticipate and avoid project delays.
This companion piece to our popular webinar discusses strategies for assessing key components of your CER like clinical data sources and risk-benefit analysis.
This white paper outlines strategies to assess your CER including state of the art, safety and performance criteria, equivalence and systematic literature review.
Have the IVDR Performance Evaluation and Post Market Surveillance requirements got you tied up in knots? Where do you start? What does the end product look like? We are joined by the VP of Regulatory, Quality, and Clinical from Nextern, a collaborative medical device company bringing unmatched core competence in medical device product design and development. Criterion Edge’s President Laurie Mitchell will lead a discussion of their experiences supporting clients through MDR and IVDR requirements.
In this practical presentation, President Laurie Mitchell will: 1) discuss how an effective scientific communication plan is an important marketing tool for an organization, and 2) present five strategies to ensure your corporate objectives are supported and maximize the real-world impact of your data. Join us to learn how this applies to your organization and how to implement these strategies into your current processes.
In this practical presentation, Criterion Edge uncovers what we have learned from our experience in writing MDR-compliant CERs, and how urgently applicable some of these key learnings are in preparing a robust Performance Evaluation Report (PER).
As we all know, the MDR has significantly increased both the quality and quantity of inputs needed to complete a CER, needing more up-front planning than the reports have in the past. Based on our experiences with clients both large and small, our President, Laurie Mitchell, shares some of the biggest issues we have discovered when starting an MDR CER project. Laurie also reveals some of the most successful strategies in addressing these issues, up-front and early.
In this second installment of our 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge shares practical presentation to help you assess your CER through the critical lens of a writer and identify possible gaps for mitigation before prior to submission to regulatory authorities.
In this webinar, we share the process of systematic literature review, and discuss the tools and best practices for creating a methodologically-sound systematic literature review.
Watch this video to learn how Criterion Edge is different from the rest.
This infographic goes through 5 key questions to go through in order to control your budget.
Leading industry experts come together to discuss how the MDR affects data management within their respective units.
This report clarifies the modifications to the equivalence guidelines in MEDDEV 2.7/1 and Quality Management Systems (QMS) ISO 13485 standard to help develop strategies.
This gap analysis addresses key revisions to evaluator qualifications and scientific validity in the Clinical Evaluation (CE) MEDDEV guideline rev.4.
The changes to 2.7/1 rev. 4 suggest the need to submit more frequent CERs to regulatory authorities, however, strategies will be discussed for managing the increased requirements.
Every time a healthcare provider makes a notation in the medical chart, a significant and valuable piece of data has been created. This paper discusses the implications of this.
This piece discusses 10 key strategies to building an efficient regulatory writing process.
In this paper, we discuss a prominent clarification on the MEDDEV 2.7.1 rev 4, establishing the “state of the art” section.
The overwhelming turnout at the ‘How to Assess Your CER for MDR Readiness, Part 1’ prompted us to host a live Q+A session where President Laurie Mitchell exclusively answers all your questions.
President Laurie Mitchell returns to continue sharing more about the importance of the systematic literature review.
Establishing and defining state of the art for a medical device is no longer an isolated task – it supports the entire Clinical Evaluation Report (CER). Multiple sections of the MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 compliant CER need to be supported by state of the art data, including safety and performance, risk management, and equivalence.
In this first installment of a 2-part webinar series, Criterion Edge will present strategies for assessing key components of your CER (or CER template) for possible misalignment with significant and applicable MDR requirements.
In this webinar, President Laurie Mitchell discusses why safety reviews are essential in the entire life cycle of product development.
Kyoko Hattori from Criterion Edge returns to discuss best practices for managing the adjudication process in-house, and Brian Kelly from AG Mednet will share how the “JUDI” platform can simplify the management of adjudication.
In this webinar, learn about CECs, familiarization with regulatory guidance, decision factors leading to use of a CEC, and much more.
This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Read more about our privacy policy here.
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
This website uses Google Tag Manager and Pardot's tracking features to collect information such as the number of visitors to the site, and the most popular pages. Keeping this cookie enabled helps us to improve our website.
Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!
