Data from TEAM-NB, the EU notified body association, shows a big drop in withdrawn certificates from device firms. Does this signal an improvement in the quality of manufacturers’ submissions to notified bodies?
Author: Douglas McGarvey
Criterion Edge chats with regulatory authorities and other medical device and pharmaceutical industry experts to share their viewpoints on topics that impact our industry. With this expert advice, we aim to keep you informed about current developments and encourage discussion among those of us who work in large and small medical device, pharmaceutical, or biologic companies, CROs and other industry groups. Our goal is to offer up-to-date and reliable information to help you navigate the regulatory landscape and gain a better understanding of critical issues that affect our industry.
NOTE: This forum is not meant to provide legal advice or official policy for any participant. It is simply provided as a discussion between Criterion Edge and various experts for the purpose of sharing the thoughts and opinions of participants.
We spoke with an expert from a major European notified body about how companies can prepare for revision 4 of MedDev 2.7/1 and upcoming changes in MDR rules. We discussed how these new regulations affect both new and existing products. Our expert says that the new MDR regulations pose serious implications for clinical evaluation reports based on literature review.
In the future, it will not be acceptable to build a clinical evaluation report (CER) based on literature instruction. This is a significant change! To put this in context, some 80% of products placed on the European market today are based on literature research. Industry experts think that that number will shrink to about 10% following the new MDR requirements.
For a new product, a literature review will no longer be sufficient to establish equivalency with an existing product. Manufacturers must establish equivalence between the medical device and its equivalent comparator. This requires comparison of devices for clinical application, biological compatibility features and technical parameters. In order to prove that these features are the same for the two products, companies will need to have access to the technical documentation of the equivalent product. It’s not sufficient to simply bring the other product to the laboratory and test it. Manufacturers will need to have two sets of technical documentation. Otherwise, the product equivalency will not be accepted.
For ongoing/annual updates, clinical literature will continue to be important. However, since there is no grandfathering of certificates, every new product will basically get to the European market in the first place based on MDR.
Once the MDR changes are in effect, the certification of many existing products will no longer be valid. Even if an organization certifies today, the certification will not be grandfathered into the new system. Every organization will need to go through the new certification process based on the new rules that go into effect in May 2020. It’s important to note the limited timeframe for the new certification process, so companies need to plan ahead.
With regard to current CERs, companies will need to revise and update all clinical reviews. First, they will need to update all of the initial CERs to meet Rev 4 of the guidance document, which is actually very close to the MDR requirements.
Crucially, it will not be acceptable to just focus on safety in order to update the report. It will be necessary to go back and prove the clinical safety of the product in the first place and then to provide updates. This is a major issue for both small and large companies.
Many companies will need to perform clinical studies and, in many cases, retrospective clinical studies. They’ll need robust programs for post-market clinical surveillance (PMCS) and post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF). With the changing rules, manufacturers will need to take a proactive, not a reactive approach, to stay compliant. Companies will need to have a very strong PMCF plan, which is different from requirements in MedDev revision 3.
Significantly, companies will need to proactively collect PMCF data. Then, depending on the product classification, they will need to produce two yearly reports with clinical data – a Product Safety Update Report (PSUR) and a Summary of Safety and Clinical Performance (SSCP). The data posted in those reports will come from the company’s post-market follow-up activities.
The Commission is creating guidance documents to clarify what it wants to see in these reports. But this reporting is not the same as a regular CER update. The two efforts must be done in conjunction with each another.
But writing the annual reports is just the beginning – evaluation of the reports is also necessary. Companies must upload the annual reports to Eudamed, the European Databank on Medical Devices, and the manufacturer’s notified body will review those reports each year.
Current discussions among notified bodies suggest that the Eudamed databank will be available by the end of the transition period or the month prior to the implementation in May 2020.
For further guidance, the Notified Body Operations Group (NBOG), a membership organization of European notified bodies, may be publishing papers with their interpretation of the regulations.
‘Ask the Expert’ is published by Criterion Edge, Inc. Criterion Edge, Inc. is a regulatory writing company that provides outsourced writing services to the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The company’s expertise in regulatory writing best practices, honed over decades, produces superior deliverables and provides budget, resource and timeline flexibility for regulatory managers. We empower companies to deliver superior health care solutions. To learn more about how we do this, click here to contact us.
There is no doubt that establishing state of the art is a challenge. It ranges from key information on the medical condition to a neutral, comprehensive analysis of treatment options, and culminates in a succinct yet comprehensive presentation that defines the currently accepted safety and performance standards against which the device is measured. Not surprisingly, common pitfalls include a perspective that is too broad and inclusion of too much detail, or a perspective that is too narrow, omitting relevant indications and alternative therapeutic options. An important critical aspect of the clinical evaluation that relies on state of the art data is also to appropriately define the position of the device within the currently available treatment portfolio.
The large number of mentions of state of the art throughout MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 provide not only a comprehensive description of the importance, purpose, and role of establishing the state of the art, but also inform on how to incorporate this analysis into the clinical evaluation. The image below summarizes several core roles of this analysis.
September 21-24, 2019
Register today to examine regulatory challenges and solutions with top industry professionals.
Book a consultation with us! President Laurie Mitchell and CEO Lalitha Jonnavithula will be taking meetings at booth #349.
Stop by for exclusive assets, tips, or to discuss regulatory or medical writing projects. And while you’re there… sign up for the chance to win a FREE Amazon Echo!