scholarly journals The EU medical device regulation: Implications for artificial intelligence-based medical device software in medical physics

2021 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
R. Beckers ◽  
Z. Kwade ◽  
F. Zanca
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Physics ◽  
Medical Device Software ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

Medical Device Regulation: Requirements for Dental Professionals Who Prescribe and Manufacture Custom-Made Devices

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-88
Author(s):  
James I. J. Green
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Custom Made ◽  
Dental Setting ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Dental Professionals ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

A custom-made device (CMD) is a medical device intended for the sole use of a particular patient. In a dental setting, CMDs include prosthodontic devices, orthodontic appliances, bruxism splints, speech prostheses and devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea, trauma prevention and orthognathic surgery facilitation (arch bars and interocclusal wafers). Since 1993, the production and provision of CMDs have been subject to European Union (EU) Directive 93/42/EEC (Medical Device Directive, MDD) given effect in the UK by The Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (Statutory Instrument 2002/618), and its subsequent amendments. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 (Medical Device Regulation, EU MDR) replaces the MDD and the other EU Directive pertaining to Medical Devices, Council Directive 90/385/EEC (Active Implantable Medical Device Directive, AIMDD). The EU MDR was published on 5 April 2017, came into force on 25 May 2017 and, following a three-year transition period was due to be fully implemented and repeal the MDD on 26 May 2020, but was deferred until 26 May 2021 due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. In the UK, in preparation for the country’s planned departure from the EU, the EU MDR, with necessary amendments, was transposed into UK law (Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, UK MDR). The UK left the Union on 31 January 2020 and entered a transition period that ended on 31 December 2020, meaning that, from 1 January 2021, dental professionals in Great Britain who prescribe and manufacture CMDs are mandated to do so in accordance with the new legislation while Northern Ireland remains in line with the EU legislation and implementation date. This paper sets out the requirements that relate to the production and provision of CMDs in a UK dental setting.

The Medical Device Regulation of the European Union Intensifies Focus on Clinical Benefits of Devices

2019 ◽  
pp. 216847901987073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beata Wilkinson ◽  
Robert van Boxtel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Real World ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Clinical Investigations ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

This article comments on the new approach to the clinical evaluation of medical devices in the European Union (EU), which adds consideration of intended clinical benefits to the traditional focus on safety and performance. The article also discusses types of clinical benefits that may be claimed and how evidence for them may be generated. In the EU, determining the benefit-risk profile is an existing core requirement of the clinical evaluation performed according to MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev 4 guidelines, but under the new Medical Device Regulation (MDR), “intended” clinical benefits must be determined first. The MDR sets high standards for ensuring reliable data are generated from clinical investigations. It stipulates that the endpoints of clinical investigations should include clinical benefits. However, many clinical-use questions arise only after a device is made widely available to patients. For all medical devices, particularly for on-the-market devices never subjected to randomized controlled trials and for new devices developed when these trials were inappropriate/impossible, the postmarket phase of the device is a valuable source of clinical-benefit data. Postmarket clinical follow-up can corroborate and refine predictions of clinical benefits over time. Indirect clinical effects, which may affect treatment adherence and influence patients’ well-being, may surface in the postmarket phase. Real-world clinical data will improve the manufacturer’s understanding of their device’s clinical benefits, potentially changing claims of intended clinical benefits in subsequent clinical evaluations. A paradigm change in clinical evaluation of medical devices in the EU will ensue when manufacturers ensure that their devices deliver real-world clinical benefits.

scholarly journals 3D Bioprinting Regulations: a UK/EU Perspective

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phoebe LI ◽  
Alex FAULKNER
Keyword(s):  
Tissue Engineering ◽  
Regenerative Medicine ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
3D Bioprinting ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Advanced Therapy ◽  
Regulatory Instruments ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

AbstractThis report introduces the challenges 3D bioprinting poses to the existing legal regime across bioethics, safety, regenerative medicine, and tissue engineering. We briefly review the 3D bioprinting technology and look into the relevant regulatory instruments for the pre-printing, printing, and post-printing stages. Special attention is paid to the applications of the EU Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation and the new Medical Device Regulation.

scholarly journals Malaysian Medical Device Regulation for Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Have all the pieces fallen into position?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (16) ◽  
pp. 137-144
Author(s):  
Nurus Sakinatul Fikriah Mohd Shith Putera ◽  
Sarah Munirah Abdullah ◽  
Noraiza Abdul Rahman ◽  
Rafizah Abu Hassan ◽  
Hartini Saripan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Publishing House ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Healthcare Applications ◽  
Artificial Intelligence And Law ◽  
Learning And Adaptation ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

Artificial Intelligence (AI) ability of self-learning and adaptation has challenged the medical device regulation in overseeing the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. Thus, this research aims to evaluate the adequacy of the pre-market requirements under the Medical Device Act 2012 in governing AI modification. Employing the doctrinal research methodology, systematic means of legal reasoning pertinent to AI for healthcare applications are produced. An effective medical device regulation is pivotal to foster trustworthiness in the governance and adoption of AI. However, the research findings indicate the deficiency of the current conformity assessment for medical devices in addressing AI modifications. Keywords: Artificial Intelligence and Law, Artificial Intelligence and Medical Device Regulation, Malaysian Medical Device Regulation eISSN: 2398-4287© 2021. The Authors. Published for AMER ABRA cE-Bs by e-International Publishing House, Ltd., UK. This is an open access article under the CC BYNC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer–review under responsibility of AMER (Association of Malaysian Environment-Behaviour Researchers), ABRA (Association of Behavioural Researchers on Asians/Africans/Arabians) and cE-Bs (Centre for Environment-Behaviour Studies), Faculty of Architecture, Planning & Surveying, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v6i16.2635

An Assessment of the EU Approach to Medical Device Regulation against the Backdrop of the US System

2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-149
Author(s):  
Bernhard Lobmayr
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Regulatory Systems ◽  
Information Time ◽  
The Us ◽  
European System ◽  
Government Involvement ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

A medical device is intended to alleviate a medical condition or to substitute a body function. The use of medical devices entails risks, first and foremost for patients who usually lack the necessary information, time and ability for informed decisions. Based on this, societies choose to regulate these products. Government involvement in medical device regulation seems to be more pronounced and centralised in the US than it is in the EU, where the system involves privatised elements. A consultation, initiated by the European Commission in 2008, proposed at its centre the introduction of a European medical device agency. By this the European system would follow the US benchmark. This research discusses some fundamental questions pertaining to the risk concept in medical devices, namely how risks are currently being addressed in the two most important regulatory systems of the US and the EU, and how the European system might be adjusted in the future.

PP31 Medical Device Regulation: What Is New?

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (S1) ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Ilse-Barbara Oelze ◽  
Kurt Neeser ◽  
Elvira Müller
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Implantable Medical Device ◽  
Diagnostic Device ◽  
Post Market ◽  
In Vitro Diagnostic ◽  
Eu Directives ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

IntroductionIn 2017, the European Union (EU) commission released the final versions of the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and In-vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation. These regulations will replace the EU directives (Medical Device Directive [MDD], In-vitro Diagnostic Device [IVDD], and Active Implantable Medical Device [AIMD]). EU regulations are effective in all EU countries at date of publication. In contrast, the EU directives must be implemented in national law first.MethodsGuidelines and respective legislation, consultation results and methods/medical device (MD) evaluations were reviewed and analyzed. Decision criteria and reasoning, assessment outcomes and potential impact on price negotiations were the main aspects for comparison.ResultsManufacturers have to be aware of the importance of clinical data for demonstrating the compliance of their products. This applies both to the approval of the products and the “post-market activities” and particularly to the “post-market clinical follow-up” for which requirements for Class I and II products need to be further developed. The MDR requires manufacturers to collect clinical data before and after approval, which could lead to excessive documentation requirements. The term “sufficient clinical data” from the MDR is unclear. A functional Eudamed specification is necessary, which enables an automated processing of relevant data. A stronger involvement in the evaluation process is needed as well as more transparency in the Joint Federal Committee (G-BA) and faster evaluation processes.ConclusionsThe MDR increases the burden especially for small businesses, and it is doubtable that the ultimate goal – improving patient safety – will be achieved. The increased demands and rising costs of the new EU MDR and bottlenecks at Notified Bodies can be a risk for the MD industry. Due to the general reduction in the remuneration for services with a high proportion of technical services, it is feared that products will be withdrawn from the market for economic reasons or that they will not be marketed.

EU Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 versus US Food and Drug Administration approval of dermal filler products

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 320-324
Author(s):  
Kate Kelso
Keyword(s):  
Medical Device ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Dermal Filler ◽  
The World ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Medical Device Regulation

Regulations to which dermal filler manufacturers must adhere so as to bring a product to market vary across the world. It is recognised that standards of the EU Medical Device Directive were inadequate, and, as a result of this, it is due to be replaced by the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) ( EU 2017 /745) on 26 May 2021. The EU CE mark will continue to be recognised in the UK until 30 June 2023. Typically, the more rigorous US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) process has been more trusted, but will this still be the case when the MDR comes into force? This piece contrasts and compares the new EU MDR and FDA regulation from an injector perspective.

Inevitable Influences: AI-Based Medical Devices at the Intersection of Medical Devices Regulation and the Proposal for AI Regulation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Sofia Palmieri ◽  
Paulien Walraet ◽  
Tom Goffin
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Medical Device ◽  
Medical Devices ◽  
Medical Field ◽  
Medical Device Manufacturers ◽  
Regulatory Landscape ◽  
Medical Device Regulation ◽  
Regulatory Intervention

Abstract In recent years, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the medical field has attracted increased attention. Due to their impressive advantages, AI systems offer excellent prospects for medical device manufacturers using these systems to upgrade their products. Such AI-based medical devices are already subject to partial regulation within the lines of Medical device regulation 745/2017. However, following the proposal for a regulation on artificial intelligence published by the European Commission, the regulatory landscape for these devices has partially changed. This article aims to clarify the influences that this regulatory intervention by the European Commission brings to the path towards the use and marketing of AI-based medical devices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document