Question‐based development of high‐risk medical devices: A proposal for a structured design and review process

The recent introduction of the European Medical Device Regulation poses stricter legislation for manufacturers developing medical devices in the EU. Many devices have been placed into a higher risk category, thus requiring more data before market approval, and a much larger focus has been placed on safety. For implantable and Class III devices, the highest risk class, clinical evidence is a necessity. However, the requirements of clinical study design and developmental outcomes are only described in general terms due to the diversity of devices.

[1]  J. Behar,et al.  The long‐term outcomes of cardiac implantable electronic devices implanted via the femoral route , 2022, Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE.

[2]  R. Redberg,et al.  Coverage of Transvenous Pulmonary Embolectomy - Medicare's Missed Opportunity for Evidence Generation. , 2021, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Jonathan J. Darrow,et al.  FDA Regulation and Approval of Medical Devices: 1976-2020. , 2021, JAMA.

[4]  M D Kruizinga,et al.  Development of Novel, Value-Based, Digital Endpoints for Clinical Trials: A Structured Approach Toward Fit-for-Purpose Validation , 2020, Pharmacological Reviews.

[5]  M. Kenter,et al.  Integrating scientific considerations into R&D project valuation , 2019, Nature Biotechnology.

[6]  A. Cohen,et al.  The Future of Clinical Trial Design: The Transition from Hard Endpoints to Value-Based Endpoints. , 2019, Handbook of experimental pharmacology.

[7]  Licia Di Pietro,et al.  Safe innovation: On medical device legislation in Europe and Africa , 2018, Health Policy and Technology.

[8]  C. Breder,et al.  Regulatory watch: The target product profile as a tool for regulatory communication: advantageous but underused , 2017, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[9]  Cinzia Greco The Poly Implant Prothèse breast prostheses scandal: Embodied risk and social suffering. , 2015, Social science & medicine.

[10]  J. V. van Gerven,et al.  The use of biomarkers in human pharmacology (Phase I) studies. , 2015, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[11]  M. Mack,et al.  Medical device innovation: prospective solutions for an ecosystem in crisis. Adding a professional society perspective. , 2012, JACC. Cardiovascular interventions.

[12]  C. Heneghan The saga of Poly Implant Prosthèse breast implants , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  J. Kärrholm,et al.  RSA and registries: the quest for phased introduction of new implants. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[14]  D. Cohen Out of joint: The story of the ASR , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  A. Cohen Developing drug prototypes: pharmacology replaces safety and tolerability? , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[16]  Gregory L Herr Biodesign: the process of innovating medical technologies. , 2010, Biomedical instrumentation & technology.

[17]  Lauren Aquino Shluzas,et al.  Stage-Gate Process for the Development of Medical Devices , 2009 .

[18]  William J. Blot,et al.  Twenty-Five–Year Experience With the Björk-Shiley Convexoconcave Heart Valve: A Continuing Clinical Concern , 2005, Circulation.

[19]  Samuel Jacob,et al.  A question based approach to drug development , 2003 .

[20]  C. Gluud Trials and errors in clinical research , 1999, The Lancet.

[21]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development , 1997, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[22]  ICH guideline E8 (R1) on general considerations for clinical studies , 2021 .