September 13, 2022

MDCG 2022-12: “Alternative Solutions” Document. Interim Guidance for IVD Manufacturers  

Author: Criterion Edge Writers

What You Need to Know  

The Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG) released a new document (MDCG 2022-12) to establish guidelines for in vitro diagnostic medical device (IVD) manufacturers while the EU awaits the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED), a project that was scheduled to be completed years earlier than its now-projected date of Q2 2024.  

(more…)
Categories:
Do you like it?0
September 6, 2022

European Commission Announces EUDAMED Will be Ready in Q2 2024 – But Can We Believe It? 

Author: Criterion Edge Writers

What You Need to Know 

Already delayed by 4 years, the European Database on Medical Devices (EUDAMED), a European Union (EU) database considered to be the foundation of the EU medical device and in vitro diagnostic regulations (MDR and IVDR), now has an updated timeline for launch, according to the European Commission

Mark Your Calendar  

When the database becomes operational, the following timeline is expected. Of note, it remains uncertain whether EUDAMED modules will have a staggered release.  

(more…)
Categories:
Do you like it?0
April 27, 2022

Ask the Writers

Ask the Writers: A Comparison of Critical Elements of the Scientific Validity Report vs. the CER State-of-the-Art and Best Practice Writing Strategies

In this highly interactive question-and-answer session, Criterion Edge experts Laurie Mitchell, President, and Dr. Sarah Chavez, Director of IVD and Scientific Writing Services, will outline the must-have elements for two very similar regulatory reports: the State-of-the-Art section of an EU MDR-compliant Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) and the EU IVDR Scientific Validity Report (SVR).

Participants will understand the required and critical content that is common to both documents and learn best-practice writing strategies to support successful completion of these challenging projects. Come with your questions ready to get feedback from our experts!

Please submit your questions ahead of time while registering for this session so we have ample time to answer them thoughtfully. Also, please be aware that answers will be limited to 3 minutes per question.

This forum will answer questions on a first come first serve basis, so please submit all your questions when you register for this event.

Who is this forum for?

Those regulatory, quality and clinical leaders and teams who are tasked with the development, writing, review, or approval of Clinical Evaluation Reports for MDR submissions or Scientific Validity Reports for IVDR submissions. Anyone interested in learning more about the requirements for these reports is also welcome to attend.

Click here to watch the recording of this session.

Why is it important to establish state of the art during the clinical evaluation?

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.

Establishing and describing state of the art is not an isolated task, but is central to the entire clinical evaluation. Defining the current, accepted best treatment options, and describing the risks and benefits of these options, provides essential information for multiple aspects of the clinical evaluation. Thus, establishing state of the art yields information that is essential for determining if the safety and performance of a device is compatible with current standards (in comparison to available treatment options). In other words, state of the art establishes a reference standard that is used throughout the clinical evaluation.

If you want to find out more about State of the Art according in MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4, you can download our full whitepaper.

Categories:
Do you like it?0
March 24, 2022

[Ask the Expert] Common Notified Body Review Findings

tips to avoid common notified body review findings

This session’s topic: Tips For How to Avoid Common Notified Body Review Findings

Criterion Edge is often approached by clients with MDR Clinical Evaluation Reports (CERs) that require extensive revisions based upon Notified Body review and feedback.  Addressing NB feedback costs your team time and effort and may threaten critical submission deadlines. However many of these issues might have been avoidable with thorough pre-planning, proper project scoping and asking the right questions from the beginning.  In this “Ask the Expert” question-and-answer session, we will show you some of the most common issues our writing team encounters with clients who face these revisions and discuss how they can be avoided. Presented from the perspective of experienced medical writers, we hope to provide examples of how solid planning during your own writing process can help you avoid the most common missteps in your own CER or PER.

During this 45-minute session, come prepared with your questions for our experts to answer regarding your notified body review findings. Please submit them ahead of time while registering so we have ample time to answer them thoughtfully. Also, please be aware that answers will be limited to 3 minutes per question.

This forum will answer questions on a first come first serve basis, so please submit all your questions when you register for this event.

Who is this forum for?

Those Regulatory, Quality and Clinical leaders and teams who develop, write, review, or approve clinical evaluation reports for MDR submissions or performance evaluation reports for IVDR submissions.

Click here to watch the recording of this session.

“Unachievable Deadlines” – The EU’s Team-NB Calls for New Guidance on Allowing Remote Audits

Notified Bodies (NBs) across Europe along with global manufacturers are facing resource constraints. The cause? Additional requirements imposed by the new MDR/IVDR Regulations. Team-NB, the European notified body association, issued a position paper to express concerns about lack of resources and guidance to assist in meeting the certification deadlines.

The primary concern cited is the likely device shortage for patients. More complex and longer certification processes required under MDR/IVDR are influencing this shortage. In conjunction, the demands are too great for the small number of MDR/IVDR designated Notified Bodies (NBs). With only 25 NBs for MDR and 6 for IVDR, the demand outweighs supply. Compared with 51 NBs designated for MDD and 21 under the AIMDD/IVDD Directives, manufacturers are in a tough situation now compared to years prior.

Team-NB identified the following four primary contributing factors, summarized in our recent blog post here.

Categories:
Do you like it?0
March 16, 2022

“Unachievable Deadlines” – The EU’s Team-NB Calls for New Guidance on Allowing Remote Audits

Author: Stacie Beecham

Resource constraints facing global manufacturers are also being felt by Notified Bodies (NBs) across Europe, due to the additional requirements imposed by the new MDR/IVDR Regulations. Team-NB, the European notified body association, issued a position paper to express concerns about lack of resources and guidance to assist in meeting the certification deadlines.

The primary concern cited is that Europe faces a likely device shortage for patients due to the more complex and longer certification processes required under MDR/IVDR. The demands are too great for the small number of MDR/IVDR designated Notified Bodies (NBs), with only 25 NBs for MDR, and 6 for IVDR, as compared with 51 NBs designated for MDD, and 21 under the AIMDD/IVDD Directives.

(more…)
Categories:
Do you like it?0