This could have a huge impact on the EU market place including the patients, medical device manufacturers (especially the smaller medical device companies), and put jobs at risk, as well.  See the article from Eucamed on a survey they did of medical device companies in Europe to get an idea of the costs involved with these proposed changes.  On 25 Sept 2013 Eucamed said they expressed “…disappointment and strong concern at the outcome of a vote in the European Parliament’s Committee for Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI)….” in their Article titled Rushed deal leaves patient and jobs in second place.

There are several sources I rely on a regular basis to keep up to date on this changing landscape and the next two websites are some of my favorite blogs as they have very reliable information that is on point, sometimes they will even make a predication here or there (with decent odds of being right, but not always) and always helpful for the medical device manufacturer.

The first of the 2 websites I read regularly is Medical Device Academy.  The article provides analysis and interpretation of how the EU took the next step in approving the proposed medical device regulations. This article covers a lot of ground including the EU Commission Press Release about two new documents in relation to Notified Bodies, Eucamed’s Political Positioning, Next Steps in the Proposed Medical Device Regulations Approval Process (important to read), and lastly Why is there a Rush?

The second website I am always checking up on is MedicalDeviceslegal written by a lawyer that works at a boutique life sciences law firm Axon Lawyers located in the Netherlands who is able to keep a really good pulse of the industry and the development of these types of regulations, laws, directives, and such.  He has written many articles on this specific subject and has been following the process closely.  His latest article indicates that the “ENVI vote result worst of all worlds”.   He gives you the bad news straight up.

Other resources I rely on a pretty regular basis that also have articles on this subject are: 

• RAPS Regulatory Focus which has 2 articles for today 26 Sept 2013 on the subject:
• European Parliament Passes Landmark Medical Device, IVD Reform Proposals
• European Commission Strengthens Oversight of CE-Marking Process
• MASS DEVICE article I saw today on the topic but with other related articles from other days:
• EU panel approves FDA-like requirements for medical devices
• Fierce Medical Devices one article I saw today but with other related articles from other times:
• EU committee backs tougher, U.S.-style device approval system

First a closing statement press release from the GHTF president was issued recently (dated Nov 2012) and on the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF) webpage for the Archived GHTF documents there is a statement at the top of that page stating:

• “Important! The organisation GHTF no longer exists, and has been permanently replaced by the IMDRF. All material appearing on this page and the pages within has been moved here from the old GHTF site for preservation, and is no longer current. It is historic information and should not be acted upon.”

Another point to note is that the last set of documents from the GHTF were issued on 2 Nov 2012 and the IMDRF website in the last couple days seems to have been totally updated and reorganized in an easy to use format that will make it easy for the public to view this valuable resource and to stay up to date on the happenings of this organization.   Hopefully,  in the next decade, or sooner, the IMDRF will begin the process of Harmonizing areas of the international medical device regulatory arena so medical device manufacturers won’t have to deal with varying regulations through out the world.

On the Archived GHTF webpage it also states that they have brought all of the current and archived GHTF documents over to the IMDRF website.  Note, that the GHTF website is still up but it is not clear what will happen to it or when it will be taken down.

—————————————————————————————————————–

More about the IMDRF: Straight from the IMDRF website the following gives you some information about the organization.  If you have furhter questions about the organization please contact the IMDRF secretariat at imdrf.secretariat@tga.gov.au

IMDRF is a voluntary group of medical device regulators from around the world who have come together to build on the strong foundational work of the Global Harmonization Task Force on Medical Devices (GHTF) and aims to accelerate international medical device regulatory harmonization and convergence.

IMDRF was born in October 2011, when representatives from the medical device regulatory authorities of Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, European Union, Japan and the United States, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) met in Ottawa to address the establishment and operation of this new Forum. A copy of the outcome statement from this meeting is available from the Meetings page.

Further information about the work and operations of IMDRF is available in its Terms of Reference (Note, the last page of this document has an organizational chart showing the roles and inte-relations of these roles).

On the About Us webpage  they go on to describe the different roles and responsibilities within the IMDRF.   The functions described are the IMDRF Management Committee; the Management Committee Members (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Europe (the EU), Japan, and the USA);  Official Observers (World Health Organization {WHO}); Affiliate Organizations; and Working Groups.

RAPS Regulatory Focus Article posted 30 Oct 2013 on the subject is interesting and provides some additional background and perspective.

Team-NB is a voluntary organization of Medical Device Notified Bodies (doesn’t represent all EU NB’s under the 3 Medical Device Directives) and as of 12 Nov 2012 there are now 35 members.  During the 9 Oct 2012 Assembly in addition to the adoption of the CoC three (3) new members were unanimously added (LGA InterCert GmbH – Nurnberg Deutschland, UDEM – Ankara Turkey, and ALBERK QA TECKNIC – Istanbul Turkey).

The Version 3.0 Code of Conduct for Notified Bodies under Directives 90/385/EEC, 93/42/EEC, & 98/79/EC is a very thorough document which is 31 pages long and includes the Unannounced Inspections (or Unannounced Audits of Medical Device Manufacturers that are Certified under the applicable Medical Directive) which comes from the recently proposed Medical Device Regulations.  As of the 30 October 2012 News Release 14 Notified Bodies had signed the V3.0 CoC and 2 additional NBs (LNE/G-MED & DQS) signed prior to 12 Nov 2012.  It is anticipated that more NBs will sign in the near future as they adopt the policies covered within the V3.0 CoC which shows their commitment to improve the implementation of the EU CE marking certification of medical devices through clarified organizational criteria, management of competence and assessment practices.  The major topics in the document are:

• Implementation, enforcement and monitoring of the Code of Conduct
• Qualification and Assignment of Notified Body Assessment Personnel
• Minimum time for Notified Body assessments
• Unannounced visits
• Sampling of class IIa and IIb technical files
• Design Dossier Reviews
• Rules for subcontracting
• Rules for Certification Decisions 

Further revisions will be made to be in line with the new developments of the European legislation.

The Emergo blog posting says “While the European medical device regulatory system remains largely intact, greater detail has been added, and new mechanisms exist to bolster the weaknesses.” An example, is that in the existing MDD there are only 14 definitions while in the proposed Regulation there are now 50 definitions.  As you can see from this example the intent is to clarify the regulation so it is better understood. The Emergo blog post summarizes the high level primary changes while the Emergo White Paper goes into a much deeper analysis.

If you are interested in consulting support  from Eisner Safety Consultants to help you through this transition, closer to when finalized, or for current MDD or AIMDD please feel free to contact us via the information at our contact us webpage.

In the Eucomed 18 Nov 2011 newsletter article they say “In March 2011, the regulatory authorities of the … GHTF took the decision to disband the GHTF … to be replaced by a ‘regulator-led harmonisation and collaboration group.’ … regulatory authorities felt that it was time to change the way the GHTF was operating so as to accelerate international medical device regulatory harmonisation.

For more details see the Eucomed newsletter article.

In the Federal Register Notice the FDA said “The agency believes that this wil allow adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without significantly delaying action by the agency.”

Per a Mass Device web article of November 8, 2011 “The draft guidance is intended to update a 1977 guidance document, ‘Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing 510(k).’ It aims to clarify when a new 510(k) pre-market notification should be submitted for a change or modification to a device that’s already won 510(k) clearance.”

The following text has been taken straight from the Health Canada website on the page for this final guidance document

“A draft version of this guidance document was first published and released for consultation in 2006. Comments from stakeholders and the Scientific Advisory Panel on Reprocessing of Medical Devices have been considered in producing this final version.

To reduce the risks associated with the use of reprocessed reusable medical devices, Health Canada has developed this guidance document to aid manufacturers of Class I, II, III and IV reusable medical devices in the preparation of reprocessing and sterilization information to be provided with these devices.

The guidance document is intended to assist manufacturers in understanding and complying with the regulatory requirements of section 21(1)(i) of the Medical Devices Regulations as they pertain to the directions for use for reusable medical devices. This guidance document should be used in conjunction with the Guidance Document on Recognition and Use of Standards under the Medical Devices Regulations.

In order to provide industry with sufficient time to meet the specifications of the guidance document, Health Canada will allow a six-month transition period commencing on the date of implementation, June 1, 2011. Following the transition period, Health Canada will expect manufacturers to meet the specifications listed in the guidance document.

Further information on this guidance document, and a summary of comments received and Health Canada’s responses to them, may be obtained by contacting:

Device Evaluation Division
Medical Devices Bureau
Therapeutic Products Directorate
Health Canada
Phone: 613-954-0297
Fax: 613-957-9969
E-mail: DED_manager@hc-sc.gc.ca

Published by authority of the Minister of Health

Date Adopted 2011/06/01

Effective Date 2011/06/01

Foreword

Guidance documents are meant to provide assistance to industry and health care professionals on how to comply with governing statutes and regulations. Guidance documents also provide assistance to staff on how Health Canada mandates and objectives should be implemented in a manner that is fair, consistent and effective.

Guidance documents are administrative instruments not having force of law and, as such, allow for flexibility in approach. Alternate approaches to the principles and practices described in this document may be acceptable provided they are supported by adequate justification. Alternate approaches should be discussed in advance with the relevant program area to avoid the possible finding that applicable statutory or regulatory requirements have not been met.

As a corollary to the above, it is equally important to note that Health Canada reserves the right to request information or material, or define conditions not specifically described in this document, in order to allow the Department to adequately assess the safety, efficacy or quality of a therapeutic product. Health Canada is committed to ensuring that such requests are justifiable and that decisions are clearly documented.

This document should be read in conjunction with the accompanying notice and the relevant sections of other applicable guidance documents.”