Suchergebnisse

In the European Union (EU), the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent 'conformity assessment' organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the Medical Device Directive, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details – which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE–MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024. Here, we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:839-849. DOI:10.1302/2058-5241.6.210081

In the European Union (EU) the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent 'conformity asssessment' organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the medical device directives, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details ‒ which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE‒MD project (Coordination of Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024; here we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe.

We propose an independent objective method to characterize different patterns of functional responses to stress in the heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) syndrome by combining multiple temporally-aligned myocardial velocity traces at rest and during exercise, together with temporal infor- mation on the occurrence of cardiac events (valves openings/closures and atrial activation). The method builds upon multiple kernel learning, a machine learning technique that allows the combination of data of different nature and the reduction of their dimensionality towards a meaningful representation (out- put space). The learning process is kept unsupervised, to study the variability of the input traces without being conditioned by data labels. To enhance the physiological interpretation of the output space, the variability that it encodes is analyzed in the space of input signals after reconstructing the velocity traces via multiscale kernel regression. The methodology was applied to 2D sequences from a stress echocardio- graphy protocol from 55 subjects (22 healthy, 19 HFPEF and 14 breathless subjects). The results confirm that characterization of the myocardial functional response to stress in the HFPEF syndrome may be im- proved by the joint analysis of multiple relevant features. ; The authors acknowledge the European Union's Seventh Frame- work Programme for research, technological development and demonstration (VP2HF FP7-2013-611823 and MEDIA FP7-HEALTH- 2010-261409), and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Compet- itiveness (TIN2012-35874). The work of S. Sanchez-Martinez was supported by a fellowship from "la Caixa"Banking Foundation.

To use medical devices rationally, health-care professionals must base their choices of which devices to recommend for individual patients on an objective appraisal of their safety and clinical efficacy. The evidence submitted by manufacturers when seeking approval of their high-risk devices must be publicly available, including technical performance and premarket clinical studies. Giving physicians access to this information supplements the peer-reviewed scientific literature and might be essential for comparing alternative devices within any class. Interested patients should be encouraged to review the evidence for any device that has been recommended for them. The new EU law on medical devices states that the manufacturer is to prepare a summary of the evidence for any implantable or high-risk device. Defining its content, however, has been delegated to implementing legislation, which is now being considered. From a clinical perspective, it is imperative that all evidence reviewed by notified bodies and regulatory authorities is disclosed—with the exception, if justified, only of technical specifications that are considered confidential or manufacturing details that are protected as intellectual property—and public access to this evidence must be guaranteed by EU law. From ethical and other perspectives, there are no grounds for less clinical evidence being available to health-care professionals about the medical devices that they use than is already available for new pharmaceutical products. Full transparency is needed; without it, informed decisions relating to the use of new medical devices will remain impossible.

The new European Union (EU) law governing the regulatory approval of medical devices that entered into force in May 2017 will now take effect from 26 May 2021. Here, we consider how it will change daily practice for cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and healthcare professionals. Clinical evidence for any high-risk device must be reported by the manufacturer in a Summary of Safety and Clinical Performance (SSCP) that will be publicly available in the European Union Database on Medical Devices (Eudamed) maintained by the European Commission; this will facilitate evidence-based choices of which devices to recommend. Hospitals must record all device implantations, and each high-risk device will be trackable by Unique Device Identification (UDI). Important new roles are envisaged for clinicians, scientists, and engineers in EU Expert Panels-in particular to scrutinize clinical data submitted by manufacturers for certain high-risk devices and the evaluations of that data made by notified bodies. They will advise manufacturers on the design of their clinical studies and recommend to regulators when new technical specifications or guidance are needed. Physicians should support post-market surveillance by reporting adverse events and by contributing to comprehensive medical device registries. A second law on In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices will take effect from 2022. We encourage all healthcare professionals to contribute proactively to these new systems, in order to enhance the efficacy and safety of high-risk devices and to promote equitable access to effective innovations. The European Society of Cardiology will continue to advise EU regulators on appropriate clinical evaluation of high-risk devices.

Laboratory medicine in the European Union is at the dawn of a regulatory revolution as it reaches the end of the transition from IVDD 98/79/EC (https://eur-lex.eur-opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0079qid=1628781352814) to IVDR 2017/746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746. Without amendments and contingency plans, implementation of the IVDR in May 2022 will lead the healthcare sector into uncharted waters due to unpreparedness of the EU regulatory infrastructure. Prospective risk analyses were not made by the European Commission, and if nothing happens it can be anticipated that the consequences will impact all stakeholders of the medical test pipeline, may seriously harm patients and may prevent caregivers from making appropriate clinical decisions due to non-availability of medical tests. Finally, it also may discourage manufacturers and academia from developing specialty tests, thereby hampering innovation in medical diagnostic care. We hereby inform laboratory professionals about the imminent diagnostic collapse using testimonies from representative stakeholders of the diagnostic supply chain and from academia developing innovative in-house tests in domains of unmet clinical needs. Steps taken by the EFLM Task Force on European Regulatory Affairs, under the umbrella of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, will be highlighted, as well as the search for solutions through dialogue with the European Commission. Although we recognize that the IVDR promotes positive goals such as increased clinical evidence, surveillance, and transparency, we need to ensure that the capabilities of the diagnostic sector are not damaged by infrastructural unpreparedness, while at the same time being forced to submit to a growing bureaucratic and unsupportive structure that will not support its "droit d'exister".

Laboratory medicine in the European Union is at the dawn of a regulatory revolution as it reaches the end of the transition from IVDD 98/79/EC (https://eur-lex.eur-opa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31998L0079&qid=1628781352814) to IVDR 2017/746 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/746. Without amendments and contingency plans, implementation of the IVDR in May 2022 will lead the healthcare sector into uncharted waters due to unpreparedness of the EU regulatory infrastructure. Prospective risk analyses were not made by the European Commission, and if nothing happens it can be anticipated that the consequences will impact all stakeholders of the medical test pipeline, may seriously harm patients and may prevent caregivers from making appropriate clinical decisions due to non-availability of medical tests. Finally, it also may discourage manufacturers and academia from developing specialty tests, thereby hampering innovation in medical diagnostic care. We hereby inform laboratory professionals about the imminent diagnostic collapse using testimonies from representative stakeholders of the diagnostic supply chain and from academia developing innovative in-house tests in domains of unmet clinical needs. Steps taken by the EFLM Task Force on European Regulatory Affairs, under the umbrella of the Biomedical Alliance in Europe, will be highlighted, as well as the search for solutions through dialogue with the European Commission. Although we recognize that the IVDR promotes positive goals such as increased clinical evidence, surveillance, and transparency, we need to ensure that the capabilities of the diagnostic sector are not damaged by infrastructural unpreparedness, while at the same time being forced to submit to a growing bureaucratic and unsupportive structure that will not support its "droit d'exister".