Worldwide Medical Device Regulatory Updates

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.

New Partnership to Boost Use of GMDN Codes for Medical Devices

A new agreement between the Global Medical Device Nomenclature Association (GMDNA) and a key provider of clinical terminology should further drive global adoption of GMDNA codes among healthcare providers.

The GMDA’s new partnership is with the International Health Terminology Standards Development Organization (IHTSDO), an entity that develops standardized clinical terminology (SNOMED CT), and establishes the use of GMDN as the basis for medical device components of SNOMED CT. In addition, the GMDNA will make use of any SNOMED CT-related content not already incorporated into the GMDN database.

Key aims of the agreement according to the GMDNA and IHTSDO include more harmonized clinical terminology, greater use of both GMDN and SNOMED CT, and improved organizational efficiency.

The agreement will last for a five-year period; both entities involved claim the partnership will lead to broader global use of terminologies benefiting patients as well as regulators and the medical device industry.

“The arrangement will help to link the medical device supply chain to the application of care to individual patients for medical device, patient risk and safety use cases,” GMNDA and IHTSDO officials state in their joint press release. Furthermore, the agreement will enhance efforts to recall defective medical devices.

GHTF Proposes Standardized Approach to QMS Nonconformity Issues

The Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) has proposed establishing a standardized grading system for quality management system (QMS) nonconformities, along with a standardized Regulatory Audit Information Exchange Form to provide more consistent ISO 13485:2003 audit data for use between medical device market regulators.

The GHTF’s proposed Regulatory Audit Information Exchange Form includes three parts. First, a list of nonconformities from a QMS audit report is necessary to explain each nonconformity reported. (The nonconformities included in this list should match those listed in the manufacturer’s original audit report.)

Second, details of a Nonconformity Grading System should be included showing how the manufacturer’s final nonconformity grade was determined.

Third, nonconformities pertaining to country-specific medical device regulatory requirements outside the scope of ISO 13485 should be identified in order to provide regulators with a more complete picture of a particular manager’s general state of compliance.

The GHTF’s proposed Nonconformity Grading System entails a two-step approach: Step 1, involving a Nonconformity Classification Matrix to make initial evaluations, and Step 2, which applies escalation rules in order to determine a final grade.

“Currently, the significance of a nonconformity related to a medical device manufacturer’s Quality Management System (QMS) may vary between regulatory authorities and auditing organizations,” the GHTF proposal states. “All parties will benefit through the use of a standardized and transparent grading system of QMS nonconformities to communicate the findings of a regulatory audit, building the confidence necessary for the potential mutual acceptance of the results of a regulatory audit.”

Even though no current standard QMS regulation exists across medical device markets—even among the GHTF founding members, ISO 13485 is not uniformly required—establishing a single method for evaluating quality system nonconformities could lead to a more effective global regulatory approach to medical device quality systems.

Legislation to Establish Medical Device Regulatory Framework Advances in Malaysia

New laws setting up a formal regulatory system for medical devices have been approved by the Malaysian government, according to Med/Cert.

The two new laws will replace the current voluntary registration scheme for medical devices in Malaysia. Medical device manufacturers, importers as well as distributors will have to comply with the new requirements following their full implementation.

The first law, the Medical Device Act of 2012 (Act number 737), goes into effect “later this year,” but won’t be fully implemented until 2014. This law lays out requirements for device registration, establishment licensing and conformity assessment body registration.

The second law, the Medical Device Authority Act of 2012 (Act number 738), went into effect March 15 of this year, and provides details of the regulatory agency responsible for implementing the Medical Device Act in Malaysia

Singapore Eases Market Entry for Lower-Risk Devices

In a move likely to boost interest in the Singaporean medical device market, the Health Sciences Authority (HSA), Singapore’s medical device market regulator, plans to implement new rules effective May 1 to provide expedited market access for lower-risk devices.

First, the rules will exempt all Class A medical devices (with the exception of sterile Class A products) from HSA registration requirements. Manufacturers of qualifying devices must still declare their products in their importer and manufacturer licenses, and update their lists of qualifying devices every six months to enable post-market surveillance efforts. Sterile Class A device registrations will have target timelines of 30 days, and fees for these registrations will remain at $25. The HSA estimates that 80% of all Class A devices will qualify for the new registration exemption.

Effective September 1, 2012, the HSA will also establish Immediate and Expedited Registration routes for some Class B devices.

  • Immediate Registration Route: allows immediate access to the Singaporean market for Class B devices already approved by at least two independent reference regulatory agencies (US FDA, EU, Health Canada, Therapeutic Goods Administration and/or Japan’s MHLW) and marketed for at least three years with no safety issues
  • Expedited Registration Route: 60-day registration periods will be available for Class B devices that have either been approved by at least two independent reference regulatory agencies or approved by one such agency and have been marketed either in Singapore or that agency’s jurisdiction for three years without any safety issues


Second, Singaporean regulators plan to implement a lower-tiered fee structure for Special Authorization Route (SAR) devices starting August 1, 2012. The SAR is designed for innovative, low-cost and low-volume devices. The HSA will temporarily offset SAR fees for all applicants subject to pending registration or change notification that have submitted their applications by December 31, 2012. In addition, eligible SAR applications that have not been approved by the HSA as of April 20, 2012 will be issued refunds.

Singaporean, Malaysian Health Regulators Team Up

The Health Sciences Authority (HSA) of Singapore and the Malaysian Ministry of Health have signed on to a memorandum of understanding in which both agencies will collaborate on regulatory science, enforcement efforts, post market vigilance and quality system issues impacting their respective markets.

Malaysian and Singaporean authorities will cooperate by exchanging assessment reports regarding medical product registrations, working toward supporting market entry of products in both countries. The HSA and Ministry of Health also plan to share data on complementary medicinal products, as well as setting up a joint system to monitor adverse signals for these types of products.

Setting up formal intelligence networks for post-market surveillance as well as monitoring counterfeiting are also planned by the HSA and Ministry of Health. 

Mobile Health Sector to Reach $23 Billion by 2017

PricewaterhouseCoopers and mobile operator industry association GSMA expect global mobile health revenues to hit $23 billion by 2017, with the biggest markets in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

A new report recently issued by the two entities, Touching lives through mobile health: Assessment of the global market opportunity, projects that European and Asia-Pacific markets will each make up 30% of global mobile health market share, followed by North America (28%), Latin America (7%) and Africa (5%).

Monitoring services—particularly those for aiding chronic disease management and ageing, will constitute about 65%, or $15 billion, of the global medical health market, followed by diagnostic services and healthcare system strengthening services, according to the study. Mobile operators will reap nearly 50% of the growing mobile health market, whereas medical device manufacturers, app developers and healthcare providers will account for the remaining market share.

However, this level of growth depends highly upon global regulators developing effective market authorization requirements that take into account the nature of mobile health products rather than just pigeon-holing these products into regulatory systems designed for more conventional medical devices. PwC and the GSMA acknowledge that regulatory support—as well as acceptance of mobile health devices by healthcare practitioners and consumers—is essential to the realization of the study’s projected growth rates. Although regulators in the US and other highly developed markets have taken initial steps toward developing a more nuanced approach to mobile medical technologies, substantive policies regarding mobile health have yet to fully materialize. Until they do, these study projections should be taken with a healthy grain of salt.

Device Classification Guidance Issued by GHTF

As it transforms into a new organization, the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) continues to issue guidances likely to influence major medical device regulators worldwide.

In early October, the GHTF’s Study Group 1 published guidance on medical device classification principles. The guidance recommends a four-class system for medical devices based on intended use, and that should determine conformity assessment pathways for individual devices.

The guidance provides 17 rules for classification of devices, as well as decision trees demonstrating how to apply the rules.

Structural recommendations of the GHTF’s classification rules include:

  • A four-tier system with Class A representing lowest-hazard devices and Class D the highest-hazard devices
  • Classification determinations should be based on a device’s potential to harm a patient, its intended use and also the technology it uses
  • Classification rules should be able to accommodate future technology developments
  • Manufacturers should document their justifications for assigning their devices to Class A, B, C or D


In order to determine device classification, manufacturers should document their products’ intended uses and examine whether their devices fall under national rules that may impact classification in particular markets. 

GHTF Unveils Successor Organization

The Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) will evolve into the International Medical Device Regulators’ Forum (IMDRF), with the new organization’s inaugural meeting set to take place in Singapore in early 2012.

The IMDRF’s management committee will consist of regulators from Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, the United States and the World Health Organization. Australia will initially lead the new group.

The IIMDRF will continue the GHTF’s effort to push global medical device regulatory harmonization by developing guidance on strategy, policy, directions, membership and activities. The IMDRF will also form ad hoc working groups involving industry, academia, health care experts and patient groups to address various issues.

The GHTF announced plans to reorganize into a new organization in early 2011. The new iteration of the group would be led primarily by regulators, with industry representatives relegated to advisory roles. Based on initial reports of the IMDRF’s management structure, this does indeed appear to be the case.

GHTF Proposes Harmonized Conformity Assessment System

The Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF) is seeking comment on a recently issued proposal to establish a global conformity assessment system with uniform obligations for medical device manufacturers and regulators from market to market.

The proposal entails conformity assessments that are commensurately more rigorous from devices with low-risk classifications (Class A) to those with highest-risk classifications (Class D). Device classification should also determine the degree to which regulatory authorities or conformity assessment bodies oversee manufacturers’ compliance claims, according to the GHTF.

Components of conformity assessment identified in the proposal include quality management systems, post-market surveillance systems, summary technical documentation, declarations of conformity and device registration.

  • Under quality system requirements, the GHTF notes that in some markets, regulators allow manufacturers to exclude design and development controls and instead utilize type examination. Under this method, the manufacturer sends a representative unit of its device along with technical documentation to a regulator or conformity assessment body for a comprehensive examination to determine compliance with Essential Principles of Safety and Performance of Medical Devices. The GHTF is specifically seeking comment on whether to eliminate the option of using type examinations. “Quality management systems are preferred because they implement a full cycle of design and development controls to ensure that medical devices comply with the relevant Essential Principles of safety and performance,” states the GHTF proposal.
  • In terms of post-market surveillance systems, the GHTF proposal recommends a process covering complaint handling, post-market vigilance reporting as well as corrective and preventative actions. Post-market surveillance systems should be put in place prior to commercialization of a device.
  • Manufacturers are responsible for creating summary technical documentation to support their compliance claims, and regulators or conformity assessment bodies are responsible for evaluating whether that documentation supports manufacturers’ claims of conformity safety and performance principles.
  • Declarations of conformity by device manufacturers must include information such as attestations of compliance with safety and performance principles; applicable Global Medical Device Nomenclature codes; device classification based on Principles of Medical Devices Classification; and which conformity assessment elements have been applied to the device.
  • Registration of manufacturers and their devices is the responsibility of regulatory authorities, as is maintenance of registries.

Finally, the GHTF proposal emphasizes that conformity assessments must be tied more closely to device classifications. The entity suggests a four-tier classification based on risk, with each class of device assigned conformity assessment elements appropriate to the level of risk it poses to patients and users.

Comments on the GHTF proposal should be sent to Nancy Shadeed, chairwoman of GHTF Study Group 1, at nancy_shadeed [at] hc-sc [dot] gc [dot] ca

New Study: US Med Tech Industry Losing VC Funding

Venture capital firms are investing less in US medical device and pharmaceutical companies in favor of European and Asian firms, and expect that trend to continue unless the US Food and Drug Administration reforms its regulatory processes.

A new study by the Medical Innovation & Competitiveness Coalition (MedIC), a branch of the National Venture Capital Association, surveyed 156 venture capitalists investing a combined $10 billion in the health care sector over the past three years. Nearly 40% of respondents reported decreasing their health care investments between 2008 and 2011, and nearly 40% of firms also plan to further reduce allocations to life sciences companies over the next three years.

Furthermore, 42% of respondents indicated plans to reduce investments in medical device firms; increased allocations to the health care information technology sector as well as to health care services outside the purview of the FDA are planned instead. US medical device and drug manufacturers focused on conditions such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer are expected to see significant decreases in venture capital support.

A strong majority of respondents (61%) cited FDA regulatory challenges as the key factor behind their investment decisions; concerns about reimbursement (38%) and financial market conditions (35%) also factored heavily, according to survey results.

While 58% of respondents currently invest only in US life sciences companies, 31% of venture capitalists plan to decrease US investments in the next three years; 36% of respondents plan to increase their European investments, and 44% plan to increase allocations to Asian firms. On a related note, respondents anticipate that more and more US-based medical technology manufacturers will seek regulatory approval and commercialization of their products first in other markets.

To reverse these trajectories, venture capitalists recommend that the FDA to improve predictability and speed of its regulatory decisions—familiar suggestions that the agency itself claims to be pursuing in earnest. But what degree of predictability and efficiency would suffice in order to reverse the flow of medical device venture capital out of the US market?