- 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.
A voluntary code of conduct for European Notified Bodies appears to be gaining traction following the document’s publishing in early 2011.
Medtechinsider.com reports that eleven Notified Bodies have now signed the code of conduct ahead of a highly anticipated recast of the European Medical Devices Directive.
As we reported last May, the “NB5”—Notified Bodies BSI, TÜV Rheinland, TÜV SÜD, LNE-GMED and DEKRA/KEMA—plan on issuing a second draft of the code of conduct next month to address issues such as the IVD Directive and Conformity Assessments stipulated by MDD Annex III and AIMD Annex 3 (Type Examination) that are not included in the current iteration of the document. (These issues were not addressed in the first version of the code of conduct.)
Notified Bodies BSI, TÜV Rheinland, TÜV SÜD, LNE-GMED and DEKRA/KEMA have made public a code of conduct they drafted earlier this year in accordance with Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC.
Although a majority of the Association of Notified Bodies members endorsed the Code of Conduct for Notified Bodies, the document did not garner enough support to become a condition of membership in the association. The Code was developed in response to concerns regarding notified body competency among EU regulators, governments and industry trade groups, according to BSI.
Although the Code was just published in recent weeks, the five notified bodies (the NB5) authoring the document plan to begin work on an “improved” version for release in October, with the goal of maximizing the adoption rate of the Code among European notified bodies.
In the current Code, the NB5 reaffirm their accountability to Competent Authorities, and their obligations to comply with all international standards, laws and regulations of member states.
The NB5 also identified various issues left out of the latest version of the Code, which they acknowledge renders the document incomplete in terms of covering all Notified Body activities. Issues to be addressed in the next version of the code include incorporating the IVD Directive, defining requirements for reviews of devices using animal or human materials, and addressing the Conformity Assessments laid out in MDD Annex III and AIMD Annex 3 (Type Examination), and also MDD Annex IV and AIMD Annex 4 (Batch Certification).
The extent to which those issues are addressed in the next iteration of the Code will no doubt help determine how influential this effort by the NB5 ultimately proves.
The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) has published a position paper in the European Heart Journal arguing for the establishment of a single European regulatory system overseeing evaluations and approvals of medical devices.
The paper was issued following an ESC conference held earlier this year pushing for greater influence of medical experts in devising medical device policy in the EU.
The ESC paper calls for a single coordinated regulatory system in order to best integrate processes between European competent authorities. Such a move would enable those authorities to uniformly and consistently apply standards.
Reorganization of notified bodies into an integrated structure is also in order, argues the ESC. In such a reorganization, regulators would direct device applications to appropriate notified bodies; those bodies would either retain their decentralized status within an integrated system or form the technical unit of a new EU medical devices agency. Widespread assumptions that CE Marking indicates clinical effectiveness furthermore require a review of the CE Mark’s meaning, according to the ESC.
In addition, the group advocates setting up product standards for each Class II and Class III category of medical devices. Medical experts would recommend specific standards for particular devices’ clinical performance and effectiveness.
The ESC paper also argues for disclosure of devices’ technical information by manufacturers to physicians, as well as establishing a comprehensive registry of devices.









