CE Marking

Apr 25 2014

European Medical Device Regulations-4 Key Eucomed Recommendations

1 Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard / EMDR, Eucomed, european medical device regulations

This blog reviews why the Eucomed position paper will help draft the new European Medical Device Regulations.

Eucomed, Europe’s medical technology industry representative group, released a new position paper on April 1, 2014, http://bit.ly/Eucomed-April-2014. This paper was created in response to the proposed European Medical Device Regulations and focuses on four industry concerns:

1. Introduction of a pre-market “scrutiny process”
2. Revised clinical requirements
3. Restriction of hazardous substances
Re-use of single-use devices

History

The original draft of the proposed regulations (i.e., the proposal) was released by the European Commission on September 26, 2012 (http://bit.ly/EUProposal). Europe’s Parliament Committee for Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety (ENVI) voted on the Commission’s proposed regulations on September 25, 2013–after three postponed votes. The ENVI Committee made several revisions to the proposed EMDR (i.e., draft legislation), but generally, the ENVI Committee recommended the proposed EMDR. The European Parliament voted on the proposed regulations on October 22, 2013 (i.e., Plenary Vote). Parliament made additional revisions to the draft legislation and mandated negotiation by Parliament representatives (i.e., rapporteurs) with the European Council.

There were three versions of the new EU regulations for the Council to consider:

A proposal by the EU Commission
Draft legislation by the ENVI Committee
Revised draft legislation by Parliament

Eucomed published a position paper on January 30, 2013 (http://bit.ly/EucomedPositionPaper) in response to the original proposal by the Commission, but Eucomed did not respond to the draft legislation until April 1, 2014. Now, the Council has a fourth version to consider–the 2014 Eucomed position paper.

I expected Eucomed to criticize Parliament’s revised draft before the 2013 holidays, but there was no further public response from Eucomed. Instead of being critical of Parliament’s revised draft, Eucomed focused on four industry concerns and made recommendations for each issue. The Eucomed position paper is specially addressed to the EU Council, hoping to influence the Council’s version of the new EMDR.

Pre-market “Scrutiny Process” (Article 44)

The EU Commission introduced the “Scrutiny Process” concept in Article 44 of the proposed EMDR. Still, the EU Parliament replaced the “Scrutiny Process” with Article 44a in the Parliament Amendment from the Plenary Vote. Article 44a involved a review by the European Medicines Agency for high-risk submissions. Both of these solutions are unpopular in the industry. In the April 2014 position paper, Eucomed does not endorse either version. Instead, Eucomed proposed its process for review of premarket submissions, referred to as a “Reinforced Control Procedure.”

The Reinforced Control Procedure is a process that is built into the existing Notified Body process. Eucomed outlined the new procedure in detail as an Annex to the position paper.

Revised Clinical Requirements (Articles 49-60)

Eucomed’s April 2014 position paper endorses the proposed regulations by the EU Commission and does not support the stricter legislation proposed by Parliament that mandates Randomized Control Trials (RCTs). In addition, Eucomed listed the following seven points below that the Council should address to ensure that the new Clinical Requirements are “fit-for-purpose”:

Ensure no “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Include appropriate elements from pharmaceutical legislation.
Consider that effectiveness is measured across the full lifecycle
RCTs are not always practically possible or ethical
Utilize the power of big data and scientific literature
Consider a balanced concept of equivalence
Importance of intellectual property and know-how for MedTech companies

Restriction of Hazardous Substances

Eucomed’s position paper encourages the EU Council to support the European Commission’s proposal on the use of hazardous substances in medical devices–not the Parliament version. Eucomed cites the existing horizontal legislation that is in place (i.e., Reach Legislation, http://bit.ly/REACH-Legislation; and RoHS 2, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065). The position paper points out that Parliament’s proposed ban has the following flaws:

The proposed ban disregards the potential benefits offered by these substances.
The scope of the proposed ban is broader than can be practically implemented at this time.
The three-year implementation period is too short of a timeline
The four-year period for applying for exemptions is too short a timeframe for industry subject matter experts to submit the required requests
The proposed ban is not consistent with the existing REACH and RoHS legislation

Re-use of Single-use Devices

The Eucomed position paper recommends that the EU Council support the EU Commission’s proposal for addressing the re-use of single-use devices. The Parliament approach stated that all devices should be considered reusable unless the manufacturer can demonstrate that the device cannot be reused. The industry response to Parliament’s approach can be summarized in one phrase from the Eucomed paper: “Medical device industry believes that Parliament’s amendments create a potential threat to patient safety.” The Eucomed paper goes on to identify specific deficiencies in the Parliament amendments:

Amendment presents a potential threat to patient safety
The approach is generic and cannot be applied to all products
The process proposed is unclear and may create delays
An amendment is not required by other countries and would increase the cost of products to Europeans
The roles and responsibilities of manufacturers and reprocessors are unclear
Standardization is not feasible

Conclusion

The Eucomed position paper should help the European Council to frame a more moderate draft for the new European Medical Device Regulations. However, the Council will likely create a few solutions requiring additional review. I expect to see a draft from the Council this Fall and do not expect Parliament or the Council to reach an agreement on a final version in 2015.

European Medical Device Regulations-4 Key Eucomed Recommendations Read More »

Feb 11 2014

How to Identify New and Revised European Medical Device Regulations

1 Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard / european medical device regulations, new european medical device regulations, revised european medical device regulations

This blog offers tips and information for locating the latest European medical device regulations for your next management review meeting.

There are two primary websites to check for new and revised European Medical Device Regulations. The first location is the Europa website, where the three “New Approach” directives and proposed European Medical Device Regulations (EMDR) can be found. There is also a webpage on the Europa website for guidance documents. The following website is managed by Team-NB–a group of Notified Bodies.

Europa Website for Locating European Medical Device Regulations

When you check the Europa website for new and revised medical device regulations, the three most important pages to check are:

http://bit.ly/EUrevisions – On-going revision of the medical device directives.
http://bit.ly/EU-current-legislation – Current medical device directives
http://bit.ly/MEDDEV – Guidance MEDDEVs

The first page provides periodic updates on the status of the proposed EMDR. The most recent update on this page was September 26, 2012. If you are following this carefully, and you understand the European legislative process, then you know that there was a vote by the ENVI committee reviewing the EU Commission’s proposal in September 2013. You also would know that the Plenary Vote on the proposal occurred in October 2013. Now, the European Parliament has mandated that the rapporteurs negotiate a final text with the Council–which is going slower than Parliament would like.

The second page has the current legislation. It is not always obvious if amendments have been made. Therefore, you need to review each of the directives to see if it is applicable. The last significant change to the MDD was the M5 version on March 21, 2010 (i.e., amendment 2007/47/EC to 93/42/EEC). There was a commission implementing regulation on September 4, 2013. Two amendments were released in 2012: 1) electronic instructions for use, and 2) medical devices manufactured with tissues of animal origin.

Finally, the third page lists each of the guidance MEDDEV documents. This list also identifies the date of the most recent version for each MEDDEV. The most recent change was to the vigilance reporting guidance document in January 2013.

Team-NB Website

The website for Team-NB is http://bit.ly/Team-NB. On the home page, there is a navigation bar listing archived documents by year. In 2012, there were nine documents released. Several of these documents are related to the PIP Scandal (http://bit.ly/MHRAReport), which is now old news, but there was one guidance document discussing the transition plans for IEC 60601-1. There were another 12 documents released in 2013. The four most recent documents are confidentiality statements, and five are auditor attestations. Therefore, there are only three new documents of importance to manufacturers:

http://bit.ly/Team-NB-eIFU – guidance on the implementation of electronic Instructions For Use (eIFU)
http://bit.ly/CoCNBV3 – 3rd version of the Notified Body Code of Conduct
http://bit.ly/Team-NB-IEC62304 – FAQs for the implementation of EN 62304

The first document explains two positions from Team-NB. The first position identifies labeling requirements and the use of harmonized symbols for companies implementing eIFUs. The second position indicates that implementation of eIFUs is considered a significant change in the QMS that requires:

Notified Body notification before implementation, and
a list of documents needed by Notified Bodies as objective evidence of readiness for implementation.

The code of conduct includes important details about how the Notified Bodies plan to change the auditing process and qualification of certification auditors to address concerns of the European Council. This includes specific interpretations as to the duration of audits, the duration of an initial Design Dossier review, and the initial plan for unannounced audits by Notified Bodies.

The third document contains 73 frequently asked questions and the response to these questions by Team-NB. There are also four annexes. The 73 questions are organized into the following seven sections:

Scope of EN 62304
Placing Software as a MEDICAL DEVICE on the Market
Life-cycle Processes
Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Classification and Segregation
Specifications, Testing, and Tools
SOUP and Legacy Software

Next Steps

Review each source of information and determine if the document impacts your organization’s quality system and procedures. This gap analysis should be performed by someone familiar with the specific process(es) addressed by the regulations. The most likely actions to be taken are:

initiate specific changes to existing procedures
create new procedures, or
initiate a quality plan for more substantial changes to your quality system

If you need more help preparing for your management review, here’s a link to a free webinar I recorded: http://bit.ly/Clause5-6. You will also receive a management review slide deck.

How to Identify New and Revised European Medical Device Regulations Read More »

Jan 15 2014

How Declaration of Conformity (DoC) templates are created

2 Comments / CE Marking / By Robert Packard / CE marking, declaration of conformity for medical devices, declaration of conformity for medical devices template, how to create a declaration of conformity for medical devices

This article about the declaration of conformity for medical device CE Marking identifies three possible sources for creating a template and includes recommendations for making the transition to the proposed EU Medical Device Regulation (EMDR).

Current declaration of conformity requirements

Each of the three “New Approach” Device Directives requires that manufacturers create a Declaration of Conformity (DoC). For the Medical Device Directive (MDD), this requirement is found in Annex II, IV, V, VI, and VII. The “Declaration of Conformity” is part of the title for each of those Annexes. A DoC is required for each CE Marked product family, but the MDD does not guide the format or content. Manufacturers need a controlled template.

Three sources of declaration of conformity examples

There are three possible sources for creating a declaration of conformity template:

Copy another company’s declaration of conformity
Authorized Representatives
Annex III of the proposed European Medical Device Regulations

Most companies are using option number 1—often without knowing it. The problem with this approach is you have no regulatory reference to justify the basis for the content and format of your Declaration.

The second option is to ask your Authorized Representative (AR). The AR is supposed to verify that you have a DoC for each product family and that the company has the required technical documentation for each product family. The AR must provide a DoC for each product they represent to the Competent Authority upon request. Therefore, some ARs provide manufacturers with a template for the DoC to ensure that your DoC meets requirements. This approach gives you a reference of external origin, and you can be sure that the template will meet current requirements.

My new recommendation for Creating A declaration of conformity

Option 3 is my new recommendation for companies. The proposed European Medical Device Regulation (EMDR) was released on September 26, 2012. The proposal provides a prescriptive template for the content of a DoC. This will eventually be required for every DoC. Annex III is only one page long, and there are only ten requirements:

Name of the Manufacturer and the AR
A declaration that DoC Issued under Sole Responsibility of Manufacturer
Unique Device Identifier (UDI)
Product Name and Catalog Numbers
Risk Classification
Declaration Statement of Conformity
Reference to Harmonized Standards and Common Technical Specifications (CTS)
Notified Body Name and Number, Description of Conformity Assessment Procedure and Certificate
Additional Information
Place and Date of Issue, along with the Name and Function of the Person Signing

Instead of waiting for the final approval of the EMDR, I recommend creating a declaration of conformity (DoC) template now that matches the proposed Annex III (you might want to add this to recommendations for improvement in your next management review).

Brigid Glass is the subject matter expert behind most of the conventions that our consulting firm uses for document templates. As with all of our forms, we assign a document control number (e.g., FRM-001), and the revision is “D1” for the first draft. The template is in table format to facilitate easier review by auditors and your AR. The left column of the table lists each of the required elements, and the right column is where the variable data is entered. Variable fields that are examples are in green font, and the content that does not require changing is in black font. There are some comments to explain how to fill in the variable content, and several items that will change when the proposed regulation is approved are identified. The following harmonized symbols from ISO 15233-1 are used in the template, as well:

Please click here to download the Medical Device Academy’s declaration of conformity (DoC) template.

How Declaration of Conformity (DoC) templates are created Read More »

Nov 24 2013

CE marking 4 digit number for medical devices

1 Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard / CE Marking for medical devices, CE marking for medical devices-4 digit number, Notified Body

This article explains the purpose and use of a CE marking four-digit number for medical devices, minimum size requirements, and other considerations.

CE marking a four-digit number

The CE marking four-digit number that is displayed next to the CE mark on some medical devices is the Notified Body (NB) number. If there is no CE marking four-digit number, this means that the medical device is a Class I device that does not require NB involvement (i.e., self-declaration). If the device is a Class I device, and there is an NB number next to the CE mark, then the device either has a measuring function or is sterile.

Requirements for CE marking a four-digit number

The Medical Device Directive is divided into Articles and Annexes. Section 1 of Article 16 indicates that the European Commission is responsible for the assignment of NB numbers. In Article 17, ¨CE Marking,¨ it states: ¨[The CE] shall be accompanied by the identification number of the notified body responsible for the implementation of the procedures set out in Annexes II, IV, V, and VI.¨ Annex XII defines the minimum size (i.e., 5 mm) of the CE. The requirements for the size of the NB identification number is not included in Annex XII, but NBs interpret the requirements for size as half the height of the ¨CE.¨

Companies are responsible for reproducing the CE Mark on their labeling and the product–including the 4-digit number. However, if the space available on the product is too small to allow a 5 mm ¨CE,¨, then the company is not required to reproduce it on the product. Instead, it is sufficient to reproduce the CE Mark on product labeling and the Instructions For Use (IFU). One source of the artwork for the ¨C¨ and ¨E¨ is the Europa website.

If an NB number is required, usually, there are a couple of different orientations that are allowed by the NB. Most NBs specify that the NB number shall be to the right or beneath the “C” and “E.” However, most NBs have specific instructions available for the reproduction of the CE Mark and the proper orientation of their NB number. Often, the NB will also provide artwork for downloading that includes the NB number in one or more orientation.

Product Failure Investigations

Identification of the NB may not seem important; however, the NB number can help caregivers to identify the NB that approved CE Marking of a product when there is an investigation of product failures with an unknown manufacturer. In that case, the NB will then share this information with the appropriate manufacturer to facilitate an investigation. The NB number is also used to differentiate when the oversight by one NB stops, and a new one begins, after transferring from one NB to another.

If someone wants to know which NB is associated with each NB number, the EU Commission operates the NANDO information system as a database, allowing you to search each of the 60+ NBs by CE marking 4 digit number. The database also allows searching by country, annex/article, product, and horizontal technical competence.

If your company is selecting an NB, you can search the product and technical competency categories to identify which NBs are able to issue CE certificates for your product. There are ten possible technical competencies to use as search criteria. For example, if your company manufactures absorbable sutures (i.e., competency, MDS 7009), there are only 32 NBs (shrinking every day) that have the technical competence to assess your Design Dossier for conformity with the MDD.

If your company is developing porcine-based collagen implants (i.e., competency, MDS 7010), then there are only 24 NBs (shrinking every day) able to issue a Design Examination Certificate for CE Marking. If your company needs additional guidance on how to select an NB, you might consider reading a blog on certification body selection.

CE marking 4 digit number for medical devices Read More »

Nov 2 2013

Medical Device CE Mark: Is ISO 9001 Certification Required?

CE Marking / By Robert Packard / CE Marking for medical devices, ISO 9001, ISO 9001 certification, medical device CE mark: is ISO 9001 certification required?

For the medical device CE mark: is ISO 9001 certification required? The advantages and dangers of focusing too much on ISO certification are also reviewed.

ISO 9001 is a general quality management system standard, and ISO 9001:2008 is the most recent revision. The focus of that ISO 9001 is customer satisfaction and continual improvement. For medical devices, the applicable international Standard is ISO 13485:2003. This Standard is based upon the ISO 9001 standard, but clauses were added for the specific needs of medical device regulations. Also, the focus of the Standard was changed:

For CE Marking of medical devices, there is a European National version of the Standard: EN ISO 13485:2012 (http://bit.ly/ENISO13485-2012). This is the official harmonized version of the Standard, and certification to EN ISO 13485 presumes compliance with the applicable European New Approach Directives (http://bit.ly/PlenaryVoteBlog). It is not, however, “required” to be ISO certified to either Standard for CE Marking.

If a company chooses not to be certified to a harmonized standard, then the company must:

Be audited to one of the New Approach Directives by their Notified Body, and
Demonstrate how the quality management system they have created complies with the requirements of the applicable Directive(s).

Advantages of ISO certification

The primary advantage of ISO Certification is that your quality system is standardized. Standardization makes it easier for auditors to do their job, and for companies to implement “off-the-shelf” solutions for routine issues that most medical device companies are faced with. Your customers will recognize international standards, and this increases consumer confidence. It has been a considerable benefit to the European Union (EU), because the EU Member States (http://bit.ly/CECountries) have been able to rely heavily upon international standards, instead of having legal debates over nuances between technical Standards developed by each member state.

Another advantage of using harmonized ISO standards is that regulators can establish minimum requirements for all companies. In my experience, the ISO standards are more burdensome for low-risk devices than is probably necessary. However, the ISO standards are often less burdensome for high-risk devices than is perhaps necessary. For the CE Marking process to work effectively, manufacturers must be the experts for their specific device and know when it is required to do more than the minimum. For example, there is an ASTM test specification for cyclic testing of orthopedic implants. Still, recent experience with metal-on-metal (MoM) implants has demonstrated that the ASTM test method is not an adequate predictor of long-term safety and performance. If manufacturers do not develop this expertise, then technical reviews for CE Marking can be quite painful and drawn out as the reviewer is forced to educate the manufacturer on the “State of the Art.”

Dangers of focusing too much upon ISO certification

I find that most medical device company managers are well aware of the ISO 13485 requirements today, but I also believe that many are less aware of the requirements of 21 CFR 820 (http://bit.ly/21CFR820-25) than they were before ISO 13485:2003. Some consulting clients have managers that believe certain regulatory requirements are “just an ISO thing.” It concerns me when the Top Management of a company doesn’t understand basic differences between ISO certification, compliance with 21 CFR 820, and other regulatory requirements. It is the responsibility of the Management Representative to promote awareness of regulatory requirements throughout the organization (i.e., ISO 13485, Clause 5.5.1c). Still, the Management Representative needs the support and commitment of Top Management to promote awareness effectively.

CAPAs, Internal Audits, and Management Reviews are core processes of the ISO 13485 standard. Still, these are also regulatory requirements for the US FDA, Health Canada and CE Marking medical devices in Europe. ISO 13485 Certification, however, is only a mandatory requirement for Canadian Medical Device Licensing (http://bit.ly/FindCMDR). Companies need to focus on the core processes of the quality system and get these right first. In many ways, I would prefer to see companies develop their quality system architecture that best fits their needs. One company I audited did this. Their company has “Leadership Principles.” You can map all of the clauses of ISO 13485 to a specific “Leadership Principle” at that company, but there are requirements included in their principles that exceed the requirements of ISO 13485. If there were no ISO standards, we might see more creative thinking and innovation in the area of quality management systems. Therefore, I encourage every Management Representative to challenge the status quo and to think of ways to improve beyond ISO standards AND meet regulatory requirements.

Medical Device CE Mark: Is ISO 9001 Certification Required? Read More »

Oct 19 2013

Unannounced Audits: When will your Notified Body’s next audit be?

1 Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard

The author reviews details of the European Commission’s recommendations for medical device auditing by Notified Bodies–including unannounced audits, joint audits of Notified Bodies, and the likelihood of Notified Body mergers.

On September 25, I posted a blog about the release of the EU Commission’s recommendation on medical device audits and assessments performed by Notified Bodies (http://bit.ly/ENVIVotepasses). You can download the final released version of the recommendation directly from the Official Journal of the European Union (http://bit.ly/ECRecommendation ). The most talked-about component of the recommendation is Annex III, which is specific to unannounced audits. I had the pleasure of being invited and attended a TUV SUD.

Training session two weeks ago in Boston (post-RAPS). Hans Heiner Junker (http://bit.ly/Hans-Heiner-Junker) reviewed the recommendation with attendees line-by-line, and there were several items where he said we don’t know what this means, or how this would be implemented. Notified Bodies that are part of Team-NB have met to discuss the interpretation of earlier drafts of the announcement, and each member state is expected to adopt the EC recommendation. For more details about the Team-NB position on the EC recommendation, you can download an article written by Gert Bos of BSI (http://bit.ly/UnannouncedAuditPrep).

Below are the more notable aspects of the EC recommendation.

Annex II – Quality System Assessment

#15 in the list states that “Notified bodies should check the coherence between the quantity of produced or purchased crucial raw material or components approved for the design and the number of finished products.” This recommendation is a direct response to the PIP scandal (http://bit.ly/MHRAReport), but how would an auditor perform a physical inventory during a quality system audit?

At the end of Annex II, the Commission makes recommendations regarding subcontractors. It states that “Notified bodies should refrain from signing arrangements with manufacturers unless they receive access to all critical subcontractors and crucial suppliers and thus to all sites where the devices or its crucial components are produced, regardless of the length of the contractual chain between the manufacturer and the subcontractor or supplier.” Does your supplier quality agreement have this provision?

If you think the above recommendation is unreasonable, items a, b, c, and d at the end of the section, stretch credibility to the limit. My personal favorite is item (b), “Notified bodies should note that manufacturers…do not fulfill their obligation to have at their disposal the full technical documentation and/or of a quality system by referring to the technical documentation of a subcontractor or supplier and/or to their quality system.” If your supplier has confidential processes and trade secrets, your company has no choice but to reference the subcontractor’s documentation. Therefore the requirement to have full technical documentation will need to be addressed by the use of supplier agreements, which allow Notified Bodies access to the Technical Documentation. This requirement will also need to be clarified by the Commission.

Annex III – Unannounced Audit

#1 in the list recommends that unannounced audits shall be conducted once every three years, and more frequently for high-risk devices. The recommendation also states that at least two auditors shall conduct the audits. This represents a 25-50% increase in the number of QMS audit days in a three-year certification cycle. I wonder where Notified Bodies will find 25-50% more auditors to perform these unannounced audits?

This annex includes a requirement that Notified Body contracts with manufacturers would require the manufacturer to inform the Notified Body of the period when devices will not be manufactured. The rationale behind this requirement is so that Notified Bodies will know when they can visit and observe manufacturing actually in progress. However, most Notified Body auditors are scheduled for their audits at least 90 days in advance. Therefore, auditors will have great difficulty ensuring that unannounced audits coincide with the timing of manufacturing lots.

The recommendations also call for unannounced audits of critical suppliers. How will Notified Bodies find the resources to perform these audits when there is already a shortage of qualified auditors?

Notified Body Consolidation is Coming Soon

You may have noticed Notified Bodies are already making a few changes to address the need for qualified auditors:

Unhappy auditors are being lured away from one Notified Body by another
Notified Bodies are using recruiters and advertising open positions with high pay
Sub-contractors are being offered part-time jobs as 3rd party auditors

The compromise amendment 44a to the proposed European Medical Device Regulations (http://bit.ly/EMDR-Frankenstein), creates a new class of Notified Body—the “Special Notified Body” (SNB). This will eliminate the most profitable business for any Notified Body that is not deemed “Special.” This may create an opportunity for larger SNBs to hire the key employees away from smaller Notified Bodies more rapidly.

Competent Authorities have also started performing joint inspections of Notified Bodies this year as a pilot program. There were 11 joint audits performed earlier this year, and eight more are scheduled for the remainder of 2013. As a result of these audits, two Notified Bodies are no longer able to issue new certificates until issues are resolved. This will increase the pressure further for smaller Notified Bodies to merge with larger SNBs.

Will the EC Commission Achieve its Goal?

The EC Commission began pushing for the unannounced audits and increased scrutiny of Notified Bodies in response to the Poly Implant Prosthèse (PIP) breast implants scandal (http://bit.ly/MHRAReport). This was a case of fraud—not neglectful auditing. Some of the solutions proposed by the EC Commission, such as unannounced audits and performing physical inventories, are intended to prevent fraud. In 2014 we will see if these methods are effective. Still, I suspect auditors will remain a step or two behind companies committing fraud, and the only impact will be higher operating costs for medical device manufacturers.

Unannounced Audits: When will your Notified Body’s next audit be? Read More »

Oct 12 2013

European Medical Device Regulations: A Bureaucratic Frankenstein

1 Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard

Author reviews details of the latest proposal for medical device CE Marking regulations in Europe–including recommendations and predictions for the plenary vote by the European Parliament.

The Future of Medical Device CE Marking European Medical Device Regulations: A Bureaucratic Frankenstein — **Who will approve medical device CE Marking in the future?**

Last year we were concerned about the potential for delays caused by the “Scrutiny Process”—Article 44 of the proposed European Medical Device Regulations (EMDR). Two weeks ago, we reported on the vote by the EU Parliament Committee for the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). The EVNI vote was in favor of the compromise amendments to the EMDR. This vote eliminated Article 44 and replaced it with Article 44a. Article 44a is a “case-by-case” assessment procedure for certain high-risk devices.

Comparison of Article 44a with the US FDA’s pre-market approval (PMA) process was made (http://bit.ly/EucomedSep25PressRelease), but the compromise amendment is unique. Three things differentiate the EMDR from any other system used in the World:

Instead of a centralized regulatory authority like the US FDA, CE Marking will continue to use Notified Bodies. Still, we will now have two distinct classes: Regular Notified Bodies and Special Notified Bodies.
The proposed “case-by-case” assessment process will involve the most complicated bureaucratic maze of three and four-letter acronyms in the World:
1. Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC)
2. Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG)
3. Special Notified Bodies (SNBs)
4. European Medicines Agency (EMA)
5. Assessment Committee for Medical Devices (ACMD)
This insane process will be expanded to a broader range of devices than just Class III devices:
- Class III devices,
- Implantable devices,
- Devices utilizing non-viable tissues/cells of human/animal origin or their derivatives,
- Devices incorporating a medicinal, and
- Devices for delivery of a medicinal.

What Will the Future CE Marking Process Be?

I started to draft a process flow chart for the case-by-case process, but others have already done this, and I have zero confidence that the current draft will be adopted. I hope that the following elements of the compromise proposal are eliminated:

Existence of a Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC)
Existence of an Assessment Committee for Medical Devices (ACMD)
Direct Involvement of the Commission in the CE Marking Process
Independent review of CE Marking in parallel with Notified Bodies, special or otherwise

The following elements of the compromise proposal are probably here to stay:

Regular Notified Bodies will no longer be allowed to approve CE Marking of high-risk devices.
High-risk devices will be expanded beyond Class III devices—as indicated above.
The role of the EMA will be expanded to include oversight of Special Notified Bodies.
The proposed MDCG will be created to interpret regulations and recommend changes, but the Commission will control the MDCG.

The following element is missing from the draft legislation: a lack of emphasis on post-market monitoring of device safety and performance. Post-market monitoring is critical because no regulatory process will ever be perfect. Regulators need a mechanism for efficiently identifying unsafe devices that are on the market and removing them quickly.

Predictions for the Plenary Vote on October 22

The Plenary vote by the EU Parliament is the next step of the legislative process. As I stated in my earlier blog (http://bit.ly/ENVIVotepasses), I do not expect a vote in favor of these amendments on October 22. There are currently too many unanswered questions about the details, and the cost will be great for implementing the ill-conceived compromise. European politicians need time to develop a plan for creating each of the new organizations, time to clarify the compromises, and time to quantify the economic impact of implementing the EMDR—especially in a fragile European economy.

The failure to pass accept the draft legislation and send it on to the Council for adoption would be bad. Still, other legal experts (i.e., Erik Vollebregt) believe that the actual situation is worse. In his October 1 blog posting, Erik suggested that Parliament would not amend the draft legislation further and would approve it. This forces the Council to accept the Frankenstein-like compromise that rapporteur Dagmar Roth-Behrendt has facilitated (http://bit.ly/DraftLegislation), or the Council must see past the political circus of the EU Parliament and draft a new proposal that makes sense.

If you want to learn more about the European legislative process, the procedure is explained in the following infogram: http://bit.ly/EULegislativeProcedure. I hope for outright rejection of the draft legislation in the Plenary, but Erik is probably right. Insanity will probably win, and we will be forced to watch in horror as the legislative process proceeds to the European Council.

European Medical Device Regulations: A Bureaucratic Frankenstein Read More »

Sep 27 2013

Which Countries Require CE Marking of Medical Devices?

1 Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard / CE Mark, CE marking, medical devices, which countries require CE marking of medical devices

This blog serves as a reference guide with a discussion of information resources and a list of which countries require CE marking of medical devices.

You can locate the current list of countries requiring CE Marking of medical devices by visiting the list of Competent Authorities (CAs) on the Europa webpage (http://bit.ly/ContactPoints). That page has 33 national CAs identified. CAs are the US FDA equivalent in the European Union (EU). In addition to member states in the EU, the CAs list also includes signatories (i.e., – countries that have signed the 1985 Schengen Agreement to allow people to pass between countries with no border controls) and EU candidate member states. For the most current status of candidate member states and potential candidate member states, you can visit the following Europa webpage: (https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history_en). As of September 21, 2013, the status of the 33 CAs is categorized in the list at the end of this blog posting.

Australia-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement

In addition to the 33 countries listed below, the Australia Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has a mutual recognition agreement with the EU—the EC MRA (http://bit.ly/TGA-EU-MRA). This agreement, however, has limitations. The deal includes a rule of origin clause that excludes products manufactured outside the EU and Australia. Other restrictions include:

Radioactive medical devices
High-Risk, Class III devices
Excluded barrier contraceptives, including condoms
Devices, including medicinal and those of biological origin

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), you can begin the medical device registration process if your company has regulatory approval from one of the founding members of the Global Harmonization Task Force (GHTF). The five founding members are 1) the USA, requiring a 510(k) or PMA; 2) Canada, requiring a Medical Device License; 3) Europe, requiring CE Marking; 4) Australia, requiring Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG); and 5) Japan, requiring Japanese Pharmaceutical Affairs Law (JPAL) certification or approval. The next step is to select an Authorized Representative in the KSA and submit a Medical Device Marketing Authorization (MDMA) application. For low and medium-risk device classifications (i.e., – Class I, IIa, and IIb), you may begin marketing your device in the KSA before obtaining formal regulatory approval (this regulation is subject to potential change) for higher-risk devices (i.e., – Class III), you must first obtain MDMA certification before distribution of the device in the KSA. The medical device regulations for the KSA are interim regulations. You can verify the current regulations by visiting the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) website (http://bit.ly/SFDAMedicalDevices).

Other Countries

Many other countries have alternate, abbreviated processes similar to Australia and the KSA if your medical device is already approved by one of the GHTF countries. Often, this is stated as “country of origin approval.” Countries recognizing country of origin approval that offer an abbreviated approval process include Argentina, Singapore, China, etc. These countries do not merely “rubber stamp” the approval, but the approval process is less rigorous.

A CE certificate is insufficient if your product is manufactured in the US but you do not have a PMA or 510(k) issued by the US FDA. Your company must establish a country of origin status in Europe to take advantage of the abbreviated approval processes. This is sometimes done by establishing a European facility, but the CE certificate must be issued to the European facility. Other workarounds have been developed, but that is beyond the scope of this blog.

2 EU Candidate Member States with Competent Authorities

These two countries below are candidate member states for joining the EU. These countries are not signatories, but both countries have established a competent authority for reporting recalls and vigilance related to medical devices distributed within their borders. Turkey has also established four Notified Bodies.

Iceland
Turkey

3 EEA Signatories with Competent Authorities

For a long time, Switzerland was neither a member of the EU nor a signatory. However, in 2008, Switzerland became the 25^th country to sign the Schengen Agreement, allowing people to pass between countries without border controls. All three countries below have established a competent authority. Switzerland has established five Notified Bodies, and Norway has two.

Liechtenstein
Norway
Switzerland

28 EU Member States with Competent Authorities

The list below identifies the 28 members of the EU. The date in parenthesis is the year that each member joined the EU. These countries have competent authorities that regulate medical devices, and many of these countries have established Notified Bodies. Germany, Italy, and the UK have the most significant Notified Bodies.

Austria (1995)
Belgium (1952)
Bulgaria (2007)
Croatia (2013)
Cyprus (2004)
Czech Republic (2004)
Denmark (1973)
Estonia (2004)
Finland (1995)
France (1952)
Germany (1952)
Greece (1981)
Hungary (2004)
Ireland (1973)
Italy (1952)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Luxembourg (1952)
Malta (2004)
Netherlands (1952)
Poland (2004)
Portugal (1986)
Romania (2007)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)
Spain (1986)
Sweden (1995)
United Kingdom (1973)

Which Countries Require CE Marking of Medical Devices? Read More »

Sep 26 2013

EU Takes Next Step in Approving Proposed Medical Device Regulations

Leave a Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard / EU, EU proposed medical device regulations

Brussels, September 24-25, 2013

This article provides an analysis and interpretation of how the EU took the next step in approving the proposed medical device regulations.

Today, the EU Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) approved~900 amendments, estimated by Amanda Maxwell (https://www.linkedin.com/in/medtechamandamaxwell/?originalSubdomain=uk) in today’s Clinica article, to the proposed EU medical device regulations. Today’s approval by the ENVI Committee should be a warning sign that the new regulations will ultimately be approved, and this will be the most significant change in the medical device industry since the implementation of the QSR (http://bit.ly/QSRpreamble) in the 1990s.

The EU Commission originally released the amendments on September 26, 2012 (http://bit.ly/EUProposal).

Also, last night, the EU Commission announced the adoption of two new stricter rules regarding Notified Bodies (NBs) and their role in CE Marking of medical devices. The lack of resistance to controversial elements within the proposal was shocking, and the coordinated release of new Notified Body requirements should be a warning sign to the medical device industry. The European CE Marking process will be changing soon.

The Commission’s press release announced two new documents. The first is regulation for NBs. The regulation is dependent upon four things: 1) the formation of a Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC), 2) the formation of a Medical Device Coordination Group (MDCG), 3) the identification and qualification of Special Notified Bodies (SNBs), and 4) formation of an Assessment Committee for Medical Devices (ACMD). These new entities were passed in the compromise amendment, but these groups and committees will consist of representatives from multiple member states and NBs. This type of matrix organization will require extensive planning and preparation. Until an implementation plan is well-defined, I don’t expect a plenary vote. For now, we have a compromise that was voted on by a committee.

The second document released by the Commission is the recommendation concerning NBs performing conformity assessments. The recommendation is not limited to just unannounced audits. There are three Annexes:

Annex I – Product Assessment
Annex II – Quality System Assessment
Annex III – Unannounced Audits

You should also note that Annex II includes a section specific to “General advice in case of outsourcing of the production via subcontractors or suppliers.” This requirement will challenge companies that have outsourced manufacturing, and the wording of this section can easily be misinterpreted by an auditor and the NBs. Annex III also includes a requirement regarding the contractual arrangement between the NB and the manufacturer. This will force NBs to revise and execute new contracts with all their clients to allow these new conformity assessment procedures to be fully implemented.

Eucamed’s Political Positioning

On January 30, 2013, Eucamed released an industry position paper on the proposed regulations (http://bit.ly/EucamedPositionPaper). In general, the position paper supported the proposal. However, the position paper also states that it is in support of regulations that:

ensures timely access to the latest innovative technologies and
maintains an environment that encourages and keeps research and innovation in Europe.

On September 12, 2013, Eucamed released the results of an industry survey (http://bit.ly/CostofEURegs) stating that the proposed regulations cost 17.5 Billion Euros. The survey details indicate that implementing the Unique Device Identifier (UDI) system, improved labeling, and clinical performance data will require a 7.5 billion Euro investment. Also, industry survey respondents indicated that an additional 2.5 million Euro investment would be needed for each new Class III device that is required to undergo the proposed Scrutiny process in Article 44. The Eucamed survey was released only six days before the rescheduled ENVI vote on September 18, 2013—which was delayed for the third time until today.

Next Step in the Proposed Medical Device Regulations Approval Process

Now that the amended proposal has passed the vote, the next step is the plenary vote. This is scheduled for October 22, 2013, but there is some discussion about whether the plenary vote should occur within 21 days of the ENVI vote to comply with a previous legal ruling. October 22 does not give Parliament adequate time to make significant revisions to the compromise amendments—let alone 21 days. Therefore, I DO NOT expect the plenary vote to pass. I do not expect a vote. I expect Eucamed and industry lobbyists to be busy during the next few weeks. Opponents of the regulations will focus on three failures of the compromise amendment:

the implementation cost is not acceptable during a European economic crisis
the scrutiny mechanism in Article 44 of the proposal has the potential to delay the CE Marking of Class IIb and Class III devices by an additional 3-6 months, and the scrutiny process is guaranteed to result in more conservative NB recommendations
the Europeans do not want to hear a great sucking sound as research and clinical study dollars are rapidly moved from Europe to more favorable nations

Why is there a Rush?

European elections were in 2014. The government officials in the office want to approve the regulations before the elections, but it won’t happen. To address the public concern related to the PIP scandal (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pip-implants/), where industrial silicone was fraudulently used for breast implants, the EU Commission has finally taken actions they promised:

NBs are being re-evaluated according to far more stringent regulations (download Commission Implementing Regulation IP-13-854 from our website),
Two NBs are no longer allowed to issue new certificates, and
Recommendations for conducting unannounced inspections were released (yesterday), and NBs are conducting unannounced inspections (11 so far and 19 by the end of the year).

This is significant progress, but the regulations are missing a mechanism from the scrutiny process, resulting in CE Marking delays that would impact future investment in Europe and timely access to the latest medical devices. Parliament also needs time for a rebuttal of the Eucamed industry survey claiming high implementation costs.

I predict we will not see a vote for approval in Parliament on October 22. However, today’s approval by the ENVI Committee should be a warning sign. The new regulations will ultimately be approved, and this will be the most significant change in the medical device industry since the implementation of the QSR (http://bit.ly/QSRpreamble) in the 1990s.

Medical companies should be paying more attention to the proposed regulations. To comply, you must significantly change supplier quality agreements and technical documentation (i.e., technical file/design Dispenser). You should be drafting a quality plan for implementing these changes to your quality system now because it will take you more than a year to achieve compliance with these changes.

For additional information, visit the Europa website: http://bit.ly/ECUpdates.

EU Takes Next Step in Approving Proposed Medical Device Regulations Read More »

Sep 19 2013

What Does the CE Mark Mean, and What is its Purpose?

Leave a Comment / CE Marking / By Robert Packard / CE marking, Medical Device, what does the CE mark mean

The author answers the question of what does the CE Mark means, what its purpose is related to medical devices and regulatory requirements, if applicable.

To facilitate trade throughout the European Economic Area (EEA), products need to be identified as compliant with regional and national regulations. In the EEA, this identification is the CE Mark. “CE” is not an acronym. The mark indicates compliance of your product with the essential requirements in the applicable directive. In the case of medical devices, there are three directives:

Medical Device Directive, 93/42/EEC (http://bit.ly/M5MDD),
Active Implantable Medical Devices Directive, 90/385/EEC (http://bit.ly/AIMDDirective)
In Vitro Diagnostics Directive, 98/79/EC (http://bit.ly/currentIVDD).

Prior to the existence of these three directives, medical devices were compliant with the regulations of individual member states. These regulations were extremely detailed and created a barrier to the transport of products between the member states. With the implementation of the new approach directive (http://bit.ly/Resolution85), companies were able to CE Mark medical devices in accordance with one of the three device directives, and medical device products began to flow smoothly throughout the EEA.

Notified Body Numbers

The images at the top of this blog posting are examples of CE Marks from two of the largest medical device Notified Bodies. The four-digit numbers identify the Notified Body (NB) that issued the CE Certificate for the medical device. This number is only used for medical devices requiring NB involvement. Therefore, non-sterile Class I medical devices that do not have a measurement function are required only to have the “CE” on their labeling. All other medical devices are required to have the “CE” with the NB four-digit number. If one of the Competent Authorities (CAs), the equivalent to the U.S. FDA in each member state, wants to determine which Notified Body is authorizing the CE Marking of a medical device, the CA will look-up the four-digit number on the following NB database (http://bit.ly/NBDatabase).

How to Reproduce the Mark

It is the legal manufacturer’s responsibility to design their labeling with the CE and NB number—if applicable. This labeling is included in the company’s Technical File, and the NB reviews the Technical File for compliance with the essential requirements in one of the three device directives. For medical devices, the instructions for CE Marking are defined in Annex XII of 93/42/EEC. For active implantable devices, the requirements are found in Annex 9 of 90/385/EEC. For in vitro diagnostic devices, the requirements for CE Marking are found in Annex X of Directive 98/79/EC.

These three Annexes are identical and provide a graduated drawing showing the exact proportions of the “C” and “E” relative to one another. These Annexes also state that “”The various components of the CE marking must have substantially the same vertical dimension, which may not be less than 5 mm.”” You can obtain a free download of the mark on the Europa website (http://bit.ly/DownloadCE).

The four-digit NB number is intended to be the same boldness and font as the “”CE”” characters. Therefore, NBs have interpreted the requirement to specify numbers that are at least half the height of the “C” and “E”—or at least 2.5 mm. Each NB also provides instructions to legal manufacturers on how to present the CE characters with their four-digit NB number. Usually, there are a couple of different orientations that are allowed by the NB. For small products, it may not be possible to mark the device with a “C” and “E” that is at least 5 mm. Therefore, the directives waive this minimum dimension for small-scale devices. Most companies, however, will place a “C” and “E” on their labeling that is at least 5 mm in height, instead of marking parts with a “CE” that is illegible.

Use and Misuse of CE Marking

Most companies want to use CE Marking on all product labeling, even for products sold outside the EEA, because other countries recognize it and associate it with safety and performance. It is also acceptable to use the “CE” in product literature. However, it is important that it appears next to product images or descriptions that have a valid CE Certificate. It is not acceptable to use the “CE” in a way that it might imply that other products have a CE Certificate when the products do not. It is also not acceptable to use the “CE” in a way that it might imply a corporate entity is “CE Marked.” CE Certificates are for products—not for companies.

Please join us on Social Media

What Does the CE Mark Mean, and What is its Purpose? Read More »