scholarly journals Using the monocyte activation test as a stand-alone release test for medical devices

ALTEX ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 151-156
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Brown

Monocyte activation tests (MAT) are widely available but rarely used in place of animal-based pyrogen tests for safety assessment of medical devices. To address this issue, the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Eval­uation of Alternative Toxicological Methods and the PETA International Science Consortium Ltd. convened a workshop at the National Institutes of Health on September 18-19, 2018. Participants included representatives from MAT testing laboratories, medical device manufacturers, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radio­logic Health (CDRH), the U.S. Pharmacopeia, the International Organization for Standardization, and experts in the development of MAT protocols. Discussions covered industry experiences with the MAT, remaining challenges, and how CDRH’s Medical Device Development Tools (MDDT) Program, which qualifies tools for use in evaluating medical devices to streamline device development and regulatory evaluation, could be a pathway to qualify the use of MAT in place of the rabbit pyrogen test and the limulus amebocyte lysate test for medical device testing. Workshop outcomes and fol­low-up activities are discussed.

Author(s):  
Yousef Abdulsalam ◽  
Dari Alhuwail ◽  
Eugene S. Schneller

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently mandated that medical device manufacturers adopt Unique Device Identification (UDI) standards on their medical devices. The benefits that UDI brings to hospitals and patients is relatively obvious, including inventory transparency, product safety, product equivalency, business intelligence. However, adoption by manufacturers, who face the mandate, has been slow in part because the benefit to them is not as readily perceived. This study focuses on the incentives, barriers, and benefits that medical device manufacturers perceive in UDI adoption. This study seeks to understand which adoption pressures are driving manufacturers to act, and attempts to gauge the benefits to manufacturers from UDI adoption. Through survey methods, the evidence suggests that medical device manufacturers implement UDI largely as a response to the coercive and normative pressures they face. There continues to be a high level of uncertainty regarding the return on investment for the medical device manufacturers, particularly from the late adopters.


Author(s):  
Elizabeth Johansen

Including human factors during medical device development leads to better outcomes as recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Startup companies have historically been a major source of medical device innovation. However, many startups are unaware of the field of human factors or do not know the value it can bring in creating safe and effective medical devices that are well-adopted in the market. In this paper, there are four ideas for including human factors during medical device development at startups: demonstrating the value of human factors to startups; collaborating on early funding proposals; delivering value on multiple levels simultaneously; and using resources creatively and judicially. These ideas are illustrated in 3 case studies.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magdalena Görtz ◽  
Michael Byczkowski ◽  
Mathias Rath ◽  
Viktoria Schütz ◽  
Philipp Reimold ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND While digital and data-based technologies are widespread in various industries in the context of Industry 4.0, the use of smart, connected devices in healthcare is still in its beginnings. Innovative solutions for the medical environment suffer from difficult access to medical device data and high barriers for market entry due to proprietary systems. OBJECTIVE In the proof-of-concept project OP 4.1, we show the business viability of connecting and augmenting medical devices and data through software add-ons by giving companies a technical and commercial platform for the development, implementation, distribution, and billing of innovative software solutions. METHODS The creation of a central platform prototype requires the collaboration of several independent market contenders, amongst them medical users, software developers, medical device manufacturers, and platform providers. A dedicated consortium of clinical and scientific partners as well as industry partners was established. RESULTS We demonstrate the successful development of the prototype of a user-centric, open, and extensible platform for the intelligent support of processes starting with the operation room. By connecting heterogeneous data sources and medical devices from different manufacturers and making them accessible for software developers and medical users, the cloud-based platform OP 4.1 enables the augmentation of medical devices and procedures through software-based solutions. The platform also allows for the demand-oriented billing of applications and medical devices, thus permitting software-based solutions to fast-track their economic development and become commercially successful. CONCLUSIONS The technology and business platform OP 4.1 creates a multi-sided market for the successful development, implementation, distribution, and billing of new software solutions in the operation room and in the healthcare sector in general. Consequently, software-based medical innovation can be translated into clinical routine fast, efficiently, and cost-effectively, optimizing the treatment of patients through smartly assisted procedures.


2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Sweem ◽  
Stan Crossett ◽  
Lori Lucke

In this paper a method is presented for using value stream mapping for improving the development process of medical devices. Two examples are shown to demonstrate the utility of this approach.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
pp. 351-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Melvin ◽  
Marina Torre

Advances in medical device technology have been dramatic in recent years resulting in both an increased number of medical devices and an increase in the invasiveness and critical function which devices perform. Two new regulations entered into force in Europe in May 2017, the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR). These regulations will replace the current directives over the coming years. These regulations, for the first time introduce requirements relating to registries. Medical device manufacturers are required to have systematic methods for examining their devices once available on the market, by systematically gathering, recording and analysing data on safety and performance. Registries can assist public health protection in very practical ways, for example, to help urgently identify patients or devices. Registries can also be powerful tools for collecting and appraising real-world clinical evidence concerning medical devices. Clinical investigations are limited in terms of the sample size and the duration of follow-up which can reasonably be expected. Registries may also be the only available tool to examine rare adverse effects, sub-populations or for time durations which it is not possible or feasible to study in a clinical investigation. By ensuring that a core dataset is collected which can be compared to other registries or trial data, it is possible to pool data to better examine outcomes. There are a range of excellent initiatives which have aimed at ensuring the appropriate regulatory application of registry data. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180061


2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Lucke ◽  
D. Anderson ◽  
D. Smith

Transitioning new research ideas into commercial products is difficult. For medical device design, the task is especially complicated because the commercialization of research ideas requires interdisciplinary teams that understand the nature of the clinical application as well as the abilities of the technology. Device development is complicated by the need to work within a regulated environment which requires well defined processes and significant testing to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the device. An experienced development team, well versed in the design and manufacturing of medical devices, can greatly enhance the success of a commercialization program. A study of actual programs shows how experience can reduce development times. There are several factors that affect the success of new medical device development including the use of effective development tools and the innovativeness of the product concept. Successful product development may use a number of tools to assist with planning and control of the project. However it is difficult to measure the effect of experience on the success of new product development. In this work, several medical device development programs were studied to determine the role experience plays in improving the time to market for medical devices. Time to market is measured along several dimensions including complexity, technological invention, and uniqueness of clinical application. All designs were completed by the same company. As time progressed, the time to market improved even for complex designs with new technology. Over a ten year period of time, ten significant medical device development projects were executed. All required development of complex electromechanical systems with moderate to high complexity, and more than half developed products for new clinical applications or utilized new technology. After the development group had acquired at least five years of development experience, it was clear that the development times were improving by almost 50% over the predicted development times. Among the factors that contribute to this effect are the development of experts, the creation of design frameworks, and the optimization of processes which improve product development times while reducing project and regulatory risk. Experts with specific experience in systems engineering, program management, electromagnetic compatibility, manufacturability, and usability along with expertise in electronics, mechanical and software design can significantly reduce design times. Technology platforms central to medical devices such as blood and fluid pumps, sensor interfaces, real-time control systems, batteries and power systems are necessary for rapid development. Processes including project planning and tracking, requirements management, configuration management, risk analysis, and manufacturing design transfer are essential for streamlining development as well as ensuring support for regulatory submissions and audits. It has been challenging to demonstrate this effect, which has been anecdotally known for some time, in a quantitative manner. Doing so required studying an organization with not only significant experience over time, but breadth of experience in terms of program risk and complexity. The results of this study quantify the significant benefit of organizational experience in reducing time to market.


Author(s):  
Lourdes A. Medina ◽  
Richard A. Wysk ◽  
Gu¨l E. Okudan Kremer

This paper focuses on the importance of the regulations, in particular the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in the development of medical devices. The FDA regulates medical devices to assure that these products are safe and effective before their release into the Unites States market. We introduce the concept of Design for FDA (DfFDA) and describe DfFDA guidelines for medical device development. While many researchers describe the regulations in the form of reviews and models, the literature to date has not reported a DfFDA method. Here, DfFDA is proposed as a method to be used in parallel with other DfX methods when applicable. The DfX methods identified include: Design for Validation (DfV), Design for Reliability (DfR), Design for Quality (DfQ), Design for Manufacturing (DfM), Design for Assembly (DfA) and Design for Usability (DfU). This paper also reviews the literature addressing the FDA regulations and DfX methods, and an overview of the FDA regulations is presented. DfFDA is developed to increase awareness about regulatory compliance and promote designers to consider the regulations throughout the development process of medical devices.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (36) ◽  
pp. 3152-3158
Author(s):  
Ramya Shree Gangadhar ◽  
Balamuralidhara V ◽  
Rajeshwari S.R.

BACKGROUND Biomaterial is defined as "any substance or combination of medicine, artificial or natural origin, which can be used at any time, in whole or part by a system that controls, adds to, or restores any tissue, organ or function". ISO 10993-1: 2018 standard defines bio compliance law as "the ability of a medical device or tool to perform a selected program with the acceptable response of experts". Incompatible factors cause chemical reactions in patients, with little or no side effects. The body can respond in a sort of way after the installation of medical devices, so testing and improvement is important here. Therefore, testing and improvement in this field are important. Biocompatibility is required for any significant use of components or materials in medical devices. Inconsistent factors create negative biological responses in patients, which may have serious consequences. Biomaterials are substances utilized in medical devices, especially in applications where the device is touched, temporarily embedded, or permanently implanted within the body. Because of the significant impact of biocompatibility, many countries have imposed regulations on medical device manufacturers to meet biocompatibility specifications. Here is a brief explanation about the biocompatibility and incompatibility parameters of medical devices with a human body and its need for biocompatibility of medical devices with the human body. Medical devices have improved doctors' ability to diagnose and treat disease, which has led to significant improvements in health and quality of life. Thus, medical devices are prone to various incompatibility issues and procedures that affect the biological environment must be followed. KEY WORDS Biocompatibility, Material Interactions, Sterilization, Medical devices, Biocompatibility Testing, Incompatibility Factors.


10.2196/17467 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e17467
Author(s):  
Juan Espinoza ◽  
Kathryne Cooper ◽  
Nadine Afari ◽  
Payal Shah ◽  
Sriharinarayana Batchu ◽  
...  

Pediatric medical devices cover a broad array of indications and risk profiles, and have helped to reduce disease burden and improve quality of life for numerous children. However, many of the devices used in pediatrics are not intended for or tested on children. Several barriers have been identified that pose difficulties in bringing pediatric medical devices to the market. These include a small market and small sample size; unique design considerations; regulatory complexities; lack of infrastructure for research, development, and evaluation; and low return on investment. In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created the Pediatric Device Consortia (PDC) Grants Program under the administration of the Office of Orphan Products Development. In 2018, the FDA awarded over US $30 million to five new PDCs. The West Coast Consortium for Technology & Innovation in Pediatrics (CTIP) is one of these PDCs and is centered at the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. In February 2019, CTIP convened its primary stakeholders to discuss its priorities and activities for the new grant cycle. In this paper, we have presented a report of the summit proceedings to raise awareness and advocate for patients and pediatric medical device innovators as well as to inform the activities and priorities of other organizations and agencies engaged in pediatric medical device development.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document