- USA
- EUROPE
- JAPAN
- CANADA
- CHINA
- BRAZIL
- MEXICO
- KOREA
- AUSTRALIA
- RUSSIA
As medical device quality assurance and regulatory affairs professionals, it can be challenging to stay on top of changes happening in our industry. Few people have the time to read lengthy articles these days and although many online newsletters exist, they are often packed with PR releases, ads or unrelated information. That\'s why we started this blog for QA/RA professionals in the medical device and IVD industry. The idea is to give you short updates on quality and regulatory topics that may be of interest to you. No fluff, just straight to the point. We hope you\'ll enjoy the content.
The German government has formed a committee of industry and regulatory experts charged with developing a national innovation policy for medical technology.
According to German medical device manufacturing trade publication DeviceMed, Germany’s ministries of Education and Research, Health, and Economics and Labor are spearheading the initiative to boost innovation and competitiveness of German medical technology developers, as well as improve patient care and speed up time to market for cutting-edge devices.
The committee will examine issues including funding and regulatory frameworks as well as specialist workforce shortages, cooperation models, clinical trial requirements and alternative funding options.
Committee findings are expected to be available in late 2012.
New guidance from the US Food and Drug Administration recommends adoption of more risk-based methods by sponsors to monitor clinical investigations including investigational device exemptions (IDEs) and Investigational New Drugs (INDs).
Existing regulations require sponsors to monitor the conduct and progress of their clinical investigations, but do not prescribe specific steps to follow in order to comply. Although various methods of effective monitoring practices are available, sponsors have primarily relied on on-site evaluations of study sites to review clinical data. The FDA’s new guidance emphasizes the use of risk-based methods such as focusing on the most critical data elements of a clinical investigation would better ensure protection of human subjects as well as study quality. Centralized off-site monitoring of multiple clinical study sites would also make sponsors’ efforts to ensure quality and integrity of clinical data more efficient.
The guidance recommends two types of clinical investigation monitoring, including on-site monitoring at study sites to identify data entry errors, verify existence of study documentation and assess staff compliance with study protocols. This method should be used to assess critical study data and identify major risks. Second, centralized monitoring of clinical investigations by off-site personnel can assess data quality and verify source data in real time, as well as perform aggregate statistical analyses and keep track of performance metrics. Sponsor ability to utilize centralized monitoring will depend on accessibility to electronic record and data capture systems.
Sponsors should also identify which of their data and study procedures are the most critical to the reliability of their study results: data supporting primary and secondary endpoints, serious adverse event information, processes tied to subject safety and ethical treatment, and processes supporting data integrity.
The guidance identifies the following types of data and processes that typically require more rigorous monitoring from sponsors:
Once a sponsor has identified critical data and processes according to risk assessment, the FDA guidance recommends developing a comprehensive plan covering the types, frequency and intensity of clinical study monitoring. Factors shaping a monitoring plan should include:
Monitoring plans can include components such as descriptions of monitoring approaches, communication processes for monitoring results, management processes for noncompliance, and monitoring plan amendments. Documentation procedures for monitoring plans should also be established, according to the guidance.
In order to clarify its current stance on clinical investigation monitoring, the FDA has withdrawn its 1988 guidance on the topic, and states that bioresearch monitoring compliance program guidance manuals for sponsors, monitors and clinical research organizations will be amended to reflect the agency’s new recommendations.
As usual, interested parties have 90 days to submit comments on this guidance.
Recent investigative reports from The Chicago Tribune call into question US medical device industry arguments against implementing stricter product clearance and approval processes, as well as the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to effectively regulate the industry using its current framework.
US industry trade group AdvaMed appears particularly compromised by the Tribune reports. In 1997, the organization petitioned the FDA to downgrade the classification of annuloplasty rings made by Edwards Lifesciences and used to repair faulty heart valves from Class III to Class II, contending that the devices’ safety and effectiveness had already been demonstrated and that clinical trials were not necessary. The agency ultimately did reclassify the annuloplasty rings to Class II in 2001.
In the past five years, according to the Tribune’s analysis of FDA adverse event data, annuloplasty rings have been associated with more patient deaths than any other Class II device. The report draws no clear line between these deaths and the FDA’s 2001 reclassification, but the fact that such invasive products were reclassified at AdvaMed’s behest without clinical evidence of their safety does little to enhance the images of either the regulator or the industry group.
Going forward, such revelations could and should impact the FDA 510(k) reform debate, but so far it’s not clear how. In a written response published today in the Tribune, AdvaMed president and CEO Stephen Ubl argues that the paper’s report “mischaracterizes” the FDA’s reclassification process and oversimplifies the 510(k) clearance process. Ubl makes no mention, however, of the article’s specific findings regarding annuloplasty rings, or of AdvaMed’s role in pushing the FDA to reclassify those devices.
“The American public and patients in particular need to know that FDA's regulatory processes are risk-based, science-driven and well-designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of medical devices and to protect and promote the public health,” writes Ubl.
But the facts disclosed in the Tribune article don’t quite square with that assertion.
The International Organization for Standards (ISO) recently published a revision of its ISO 14155 rule governing clinical trials for medical devices, ISO 14155:2011, and manufacturers will have several new requirements to address in order to comply. (An overview of the revised standard is available from Excel Translations.)
ISO 14155:2011 follows ISO 14155:2003 and ISO 14155:2009, European standards applied to medical device clinical investigations. The new standard is entitled Clinical Investigation of Medical Devices for Human Subjects—Good Clinical Practices, and applies globally to all medical device manufacturers conducting clinical studies.
The revised standard’s new requirements pertain primarily to sponsor responsibilities, informed consent rules, ethics committees, study monitoring and data and risk management. Risk management features particularly strongly in ISO 14155:2011, which frequently references another medical device risk management standard, ISO 14971.
Once ISO 14155:2011 is published in the Official Journal of the European Union, mandatory compliance will go into effect. Each ISO member nation will have the opportunity to modify ISO 14155:2011 before adopting the standard—thus, actual requirements may vary from market to market. As such, manufacturers should pay close attention to ISO 14155:2011 requirements particular to the countries in which they plan to conduct clinical investigations.
The UK’s Academy of Medical Sciences has issued a new report recommending the consolidation of medical research regulations and governance under a single entity.
The Academy’s report, “A new Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research,” includes five key components: the creation of a new Health Research Agency (HRA) to oversee all medical research activities in the UK; the establishing of a new National Research Governance Service within the HRA to expedite approval of research studies; improving the overall environment within the UK for clinical trials; improving access to patient data for more effective research; and embedding a culture valuing research within the National Health System.
Access to the Academy’s fully report, as well as responses to the proposal, are available here.
A more well-oiled research regulatory infrastructure could make the UK a more attractive market in which to conduct clinical trials and gain approval for medical device and IVD products.









