The European Commission’s (EC’s) Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety recently published a survey of notified bodies. This was conducted between April and May 2023, eliciting responses from all 39 notified bodies designated under the Medical Devices Regulation (MDR) and 10 Notified bodies designated under the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR).
An increasing number of European med-tech companies are first seeking regulatory approval from the U.S. FDA because of the growing backlog and frustrations with requirements under the new regulatory framework of the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR), which has been described as “not working.”
The recent decision by the EU to delay the implementation dates for the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) initiative is having ripple effects across the globe as other regulatory jurisdictions amend their policies to keep pace. The U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have both revised their strategies to align with the latest MDR delay, giving devices that will remain available in the EU a similar extension in the U.K. and Australia.
Device makers doing business in the EU finally have official word that the new implementation dates for the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) are in force, offering some vital breathing room for products already on the market. However, manufacturers that wish to obtain a new certificate for their legacy devices still have a lot of work to do as they must file at least a preliminary application for these devices with a notified body (NB) by May 26, 2024, not a mean feat given the crunch on notified bodies operating in the EU.
The European Council applied its seal of approval to a proposal to extend the deadlines for the Medical Device Regulation (MDR), providing industry some critical breathing room to obtain certification for devices brought to market under the legacy Medical Device Directive (MDD).
The European Parliament (EP) has voted to affirm the proposal by the European Commission (EC) to extend the compliance timelines for the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) in an urgent vote that eliminated any chance of debate. The vote was a landslide, coming in at 564 votes in support and three nays.
The Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA) has led the policy charge for smaller medical device manufacturers for decades, but each year brings its own unique set of hazards and opportunities. In an interview with BioWorld, MDMA President and CEO Mark Leahey said that while the Medicare policy for coverage of breakthrough devices has gone through some unanticipated twists and turns, that policy is not yet fixed and thus there is still some prospect that such a policy will not devolve into a stew of leftovers drawn from existing coverage mechanisms.
The European Commission (EC) has proposed to extend compliance deadlines under the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) to 2027 for high-risk devices and to 2028 for low- and moderate-risk devices, seemingly providing some critical breathing room for manufacturers and patients alike. However, the proposal requires that manufacturers have an application on file for their legacy device by May 2024, suggesting that manufacturers will still face a crippling backlog in obtaining contracts with notified bodies to process these applications.
The European Union’s (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) drew a fair amount of criticism when it was first released, but Team-NB, the association of notified bodies (NBs) for the EU, has weighed in with some less than flattering observations. The group’s position paper on the legislation said that the act would not only up-classify some artificial intelligence algorithms to a higher risk class but would also resurrect the backlog of applications because of burdensome new requirements for NBs, thus exacerbating an existing crisis of med tech availability in the EU.
The European Union’s efforts to update its regulatory framework for medical devices was heralded as a long-overdue response to the Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) breast implant scandal, but the COVID-19 pandemic added significant drag to the implementation timelines. Those timelines have proven impracticable for other reasons as well and the problem will bleed into the new year and perhaps beyond to the detriment of patients and manufacturers.
