The clinical evaluation and approval threshold of biomaterials and medical devices

Author(s):  
K.G. Stevens
2019 ◽  
pp. 216847901987073 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beata Wilkinson ◽  
Robert van Boxtel

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.


ABOUTOPEN ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-75
Author(s):  
Peter Fennema ◽  
Hassan Achakri

On 26 May 2017, the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR 2017/745) was published, with the aim of replacing the current Medical Devices Directive (MDD 93/43/EC). Following a transition period of 3 years, this regulation will be applied in full from 26 May 2020. This article describes and discusses the impact of MDR on the clinical evaluation and gives advice to manufacturers on the preparation, planning and implementation of processes to support compliance with the new regulation. (HTA & Market Access)


2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107031
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Kramer ◽  
Efthimios Parasidis

Many high-risk medical devices earn US marketing approval based on limited premarket clinical evaluation that leaves important questions unanswered. Rigorous postmarket surveillance includes registries that actively collect and maintain information defined by individual patient exposures to particular devices. Several prominent registries for cardiovascular devices require enrolment as a condition of reimbursement for the implant procedure, without informed consent. In this article, we focus on whether these registries, separate from their legal requirements, have an ethical obligation to obtain informed consent from enrolees, what is lost in not doing so, and the ways in which seeking and obtaining consent might strengthen postmarket surveillance in the USA.


Therapies ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
François Parquin ◽  
Antoine Audry ◽  
Antoine Audry ◽  
Bernard Avouac ◽  
Alexandre Barna ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document