The new 5th edition of the biocompatibility standard, ISO 10993-1-2018, was released in August, and this article explains the changes and potential impact.

ISO 10993-1-2018 is the 5th edition of the biocompatibility standard for the evaluation of medical devices. The new version, released in August, replaces the 2009 version of the standard. I was unable to find a European version of this standard, but you can expect one to be made available very soon–probably before you read this article. If your company is CE Marking devices, once the European standard is released, you will be required to perform a gap analysis against the new standard and assess whether retesting is required for your products to remain compliant with CE Marking requirements.

The FDA has not yet added ISO 10993-1-2018 to the recognized standards database. Still, the FDA guidance on the use of ISO 10993-1, released in February 2016, already addressed most of the changes contained in the new 5th edition.

Overview of Changes in ISO 10993-1-2018

The 5th edition includes a foreword that explains the changes from the 4th edition. The 5th edition replaces the 4th edition (i.e., ISO 10993-1-2009), and it incorporates the correction that was made in 2010. The most significant changes from the previous version are:

• Table A.1 in Annex A, Evaluation Tests for Consideration, was expanded with the addition of six new columns:
  • “physical and/or chemical information”
  • “material mediated pyrogenicity”
  • “chronic toxicity”
  • “carcinogenicity”
  • “reproductive/developmental toxicity”
  • “degradation”

• Instead of tests to be conducted is identified with an “X,” the updated table now identifies endpoints to be considered with “E.” The only column containing an “X” is the column for physical and/or chemical information. This information is identified as a prerequisite for a risk assessment. The new Annex A is now five pages in length.
• The 3-pages that were Annex B, “Guidance on the risk management process,” has been completely replaced with 13-pages from ISO TR 15499-2016, “Guidance on the conduct of biological evaluation within a risk management process.”
• Twenty-one (21) new definitions for terms were added to the 5th edition–including “3.9 geometry device configuration,” “3.15 nanomaterial,” “3.16 non-contacting,” “3.17 physical and chemical information,” “3.25 toxicological threshold” and “3.26 transitory contact.”
• Additional information on the evaluation of non-contacting medical devices and transitory-contacting medical devices was added.
• Expansion of the standard to include evaluation of nanomaterials and absorbable materials. This consists of the addition of section B.4.3.3 in Annex B for guidance on pH and osmolality compensation for absorbable materials.
• An additional reference to ISO 18562-1, -2, -3 and -4, for “Biocompatibility evaluation of breathing gas pathways in healthcare applications,” was added as well. However, the four standards in the ISO 18562 series should be purchased if you are conducting a biocompatibility evaluation for a device of this type (e.g., respiratory gas humidifiers).

There are also many minor changes in the 5th edition, but Annex C is almost identical to the previous version. The only change I noticed was the addition of “Preference may be given to GLP over non-GLP data” to clause C.2.3.

Correspondence with FDA Guidance on Use of ISO 10993-1-2018

Table A.1 in Annex A is quite similar to Table A.1 in the FDA guidance, and 100% of the columns match except the column for “physical and/or chemical information.” Although the FDA guidance does not have a column in the table indicating that physical and chemical characterization is required as a prerequisite for the risk assessment, it is very clear from the language in the guidance that information about the physical and chemical characteristics of the device “should be provided in sufficient detail for FDA to make an independent assessment during our review and arrive at the same conclusion.” FDA guidance also requires information about the surface properties of the finished device. The FDA included a section specific to “Submicron or Nanotechnology Components,” which is consistent with the ISO 10993-1-2018, where there references throughout the standard to ISO/TR 10993-22, guidance on nanomaterials. The FDA guidance does not, however, include guidance on pH and osmolality compensation for absorbable materials. The FDA guidance also does not include a reference to the ISO 18562 series of standards, but the FDA product classification database was updated in June to include a reference to the ISO 18562 series of standards when they were added to the database of recognized standards.

Correspondence with the European Directive and EU MDR

The 4th edition of the EN version has Table ZA.1 explaining the correlation between the standard and the European Directive. Specifically, Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the European Standard correspond to Annex I, Essential Requirements 7.1, 7.2 and 7.5 in the MDD. In the new Regulation (EU) 2017/745, these clauses correspond with Annex I, Essential Requirements 10.1, 10.2, and 10.4. Therefore, you should expect the European version of ISO 10993-1-2018 to include a table similar to Table ZA.1, but you should also anticipate that your evaluation of biological risks will need to be updated and additional testing may be required in order to remain compliant for any devices that are CE Marked.

Changes to the biological evaluation process in ISO 10993-1-2018

As in the previous version of the biocompatibility standard, Figure 1 is a decision tree that follows the biological evaluation process outlined in the standard. At first glance, the updated Figure 1 appears to be essentially unchanged. However, even though the updated figure has the same shape and the same number of elements, there are subtle changes. For example, the potential effects of geometry are emphasized in the ISO 10993-1-2018. The more significant change in the process is at the end. Where it used to say, “Testing and/or justification for omitting suggested tests,” the updated figure now includes a reference to Annex A under those words. Where it used to say, “Perform Biological Evaluation,” the updated figure now says, “Perform Toxicological Risk Assessment (Annex B).”

Annex B is where the most visible changes are found in the ISO 10993-1-2018. For example, in the previous version of the biocompatibility standard, there was a reference to creating a prospective biological evaluation plan as part of the risk management plan. In the 5th edition, clause B.2.2 outlines the Biological Evaluation Plan–which is sometimes referred to by its acronym of “BEP” by third-party testing labs.

In addition, clause B.4 provides guidance for biological evaluation. This guidance is directly copied from ISO/TR 10993-22, but it answers the frequently asked question of “how do you perform a biological evaluation.” The necessary steps of the biological evaluation, which have not changed, are:

1. Material characterization (B.4.1)
2. Collection of existing data (B.4.2)
3. Device testing considerations (B.4.3)
4. Biological safety assessment (B.4.4)

However, the guidance provides details for each step, as well as general guidance on when changes may require a re-evaluation of biological safety, GLPs, and biocompatibility evaluation documentation. In general, the focus of ISO 10993-1-2018 is now on the evaluation of toxicological data in Annex B, rather than passing a few required tests that were previously identified in Table A.1.

Will ISO 10993-1-2018 Require you to Retest for Biocompatibility?

In general, I do not expect that the changes to ISO 10993-1-2018 will require extensive retesting for your company. However, you can expect a significant amount of rewriting of your biological evaluation report to be required. Now you will need to more fully characterize the physical and chemical characteristics of your device, and you will need to provide a more comprehensive biological safety assessment–including an evaluation of toxicological data for each chemical including in the formulation of your device. It’s possible that you may even identify certain chemicals in the material formulation that prevent you from using a material–even though the material may have passed all biocompatibility tests in the past. I will also need to update one of my articles on biocompatibility and a biocompatibility webinar.

This article explains when a safety agency mark is required for electrical medical equipment for products sold in the USA.

What is a safety agency mark?

Examples of safety agency marks include UL, CSA, Intertek, SGS Q-mark, and other marks indicating that a recognized testing lab completed the electrical safety testing and the device passed the testing. Health Canada requires a safety agency mark to certify approval by a lab that is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada (SCC). However, device manufacturers frequently find it unclear what the requirements are in the USA for electrical medical equipment regarding a safety agency mark.

Leo Eisner’s explanation of the requirements for a safety agency mark in the USA

Leo Eisner of Eisner Safety was kind enough to answer this question. The simple answer is yes. In the US, there is a requirement for equipment in the workplace to have an NRTL Safety Agency Approval Mark for the applicable category on the device to meet OSHA requirements. The requirements for NRTL approval of electric equipment (or medical electrical equipment) are in 29 CFR 1910.303(a) and 29 CFR 1910.307(c). Because of these requirements, most electric equipment used in the workplace must be NRTL-approved. Biomeds maintain and track all the medical equipment in hospitals and clinical environments, and the biomeds usually insist upon an Agency Approval Mark. However, the biomeds may not be aware of the NRTL requirements.

What is an NRTL?

An NRTL is a Nationally Recognized Test Lab that is approved or authorized by Occupational Safety & Hazard Administration (OSHA) for specific device test standards (i.e., UL 60601-1 [National deviation version of IEC 60601-1, 2^nd ed. medical electrical equipment standard] and/or AAMI ES 60601-1 [National deviation version of IEC 60601-1, ed 3.1], among many other standards) to allow a US Mark placed on approved devices that meet the applicable standard. Not all NRTL labs can test to the listed medical electrical standards for medical equipment to allow a US mark to be placed on devices. You must go to the OSHA NRTL site to verify that the test lab can issue a US mark. The lab’s link shows which standards each test lab can issue US Marks for.

This article describes how to perform IFU validation before commercialization and how to conduct post-market surveillance to ensure that your IFU continues to be suitable as your user population and patient population expand.

Most companies create an IFU for a new product by plagiarism. They merely copy a competitor’s IFU and change the name. If a regulatory expert creates the IFU, the IFU will be nearly identical to the competitor IFU. However, if a marketing person creates the IFU, the IFU will explain how your product is different from the competitor’s product. Neither approach is practical.

Creating a risk-based IFU

EN ISO 14971:2012 identifies deviations between the ISO 14971:2007 international standard and the three EU Directives. However, deviation #7 is specific to labeling and instructions for use. Even if your product is not CE marked, you should be developing a risk-based approach to IFUs. The priority of risk controls is to eliminate and reduce risks by design, manufacture, and selection of materials. The second priority is to implement protective measures such as alarms to warn users of risks. The last priority for risk controls is to inform users of residual risks. The best practice is to utilize a risk traceability matrix to document each of the risk controls you implemented to eliminate and reduce the risks of hazards identified.

The EN version of ISO 14971 will not allow you to reduce risks quantitatively in your risk assessment for information provided to users about risks, because this type of risk control is not entirely effective. However, you are required to verify that each residual risk is disclosed to users in your IFU, and you must validate that your warnings, precautions, and contraindications are adequately identified such that users understand the residual risks. You are also required to determine any user training needed to ensure specified performance and safe use of your medical device in accordance with ISO 13485:2016, Clause 7.2.1d. Clause 7.2.2d) requires that your company ensure that user training is made available. Any user training you provide should also be validated for effectiveness.

When to perform IFU validation

Some companies ask physicians that helped them with product development review draft IFUs. However, these physicians are already familiar with your product, and your company, and they are highly skilled in the specific procedures your device will be used for. After your experts have made their final edits to your draft IFU, you now need a “fresh set of eyes.” The best approach is to validate the effectiveness of your IFU with potential users that don’t know you or your company. If your product requires animal performance testing or human clinical studies, you could use these studies to validate your IFU. However, I recommend conducting a simulated use study before conducting animal or human studies. Conducting a simulated use study before animal and human studies can prevent deviations from your documented protocols that were caused by the inadequate review of the IFUs.

Methods of IFU validation

The best method for validating your IFU is to perform a simulated use study or human factors study. The FDA published a human factors guidance document that can help you assess the risk of human factors and ergonomics. The FDA guidance requires that you identify your intended user population(s). For each individual population of users, you are required to have a minimum of 15 users for your study. If your product is not for specific indications, you may be able to select 15 users at a few sites randomly. However, if your device is intended for two different specialties, then you need 30 users–15 for each specialization.  I recommend recording a video of simulated use studies too. Videos identify small details that you might miss, and clips from the videos are useful in creating training videos for future users.

Gathering Post-Market Surveillance

Post-market surveillance is not just asking customers if they are satisfied. You need to continue to monitor adverse event databases, your complaint database, and any service records to determine if there are any new risks and to verify that the risks you identified were accurately estimated concerning severity and probability of occurrence of harm. Clinical studies and PMS are the only way you can gather data regarding the likelihood of occurrence of harm. When you design your post-market surveillance questions, make sure you include questions explicitly targeting the residual risks you identify in your IFU. You should also ask, “What indications do you use this device for. Specifically, please identify the intended diagnosis, treatment, and patient populations.” This wording is more effective than asking if a physician is using your product “off label.”

Revalidation of IFU after labeling changes

Changes to labeling and IFUs should always be considered design changes and may require revalidation. If the switch is in response to a complaint or CAPA, then you must revalidate the IFU and labeling to verify the effectiveness of your corrective action. Any validation should be documented, reviewed, and approved before implementation, and acceptance criteria should be determined ahead of time. Your acceptance criteria should be quantitative, so you can objectively determine if the change is valid or not. You might be able to copy your previous IFU validation protocol or simulated use protocol and simply repeat the validation precisely as you did before with new users. However, sometimes the reason why the IFU was not 100% effective in the past is that the risk you are addressing in the revised IFU was not evaluated adequately in the original simulated use protocol.

New webinar for risk-based IFU validation and PMS

If you want to learn more about using a risk-based approach to developing IFUs, validating IFUs, and performing post-market surveillance to monitor the effectiveness of your IFU, then please click on the webinar link below.

If you are interested in ISO 14971 training, we were conducting a risk management training webinar on October 19, 2018.

Is a DHF required appears to be a simple yes/no question? If you reword the question, however, you get a very different answer.

If you ask, “how much less documentation is required for the design of a Class 1 device compared with a Class 2 device?” you get a very different answer. Instead of 0% (Yes, a DHF is required) of 100% (No DHF required), the answer is that you need 33% less documentation for the design of a Class 1 device.

The FDA shared a presentation on design controls in 2015.

In that presentation, the agency identified six Class 1 product classifications that require design controls, while thousands of Class 1 product classifications do not need design controls. Despite the lack of design controls, manufacturers must still maintain a procedure for design transfer, maintain an approved device master file with all the approved design specifications (i.e., design outputs), and design changes may still require revalidation before implementation.

Why is a DHF Required for Class 2, but Not for Class 1?

Class 1 devices are simple devices that are already on the market and have a history of clinical safety. Class 2 devices are generally more complex and present a moderate risk. Therefore, changes in the technological characteristics often present a higher risk for Class 2 devices. When you design a Class 1 device, you still have to determine what your design specifications will be. Again, you don’t need: 1) to review and approve design inputs, 2) a procedure to document your design process, 3) to document formal design reviews, and 4) to create a design plan.

In the 1997 guidance document for design controls, the FDA states that a design transfer procedure should include at least three basic elements:

1. design and development procedures should consist of a qualitative assessment of the completeness and adequacy of the production specifications;
2. procedures should ensure that all documents and articles which constitute the production specifications are reviewed and approved; and
3. procedures should ensure that only approved specifications are used to manufacture production devices.

The first of these basic elements is not required for Class 1 devices because product specifications for most Class 1 devices are simple. The other two requirements are fundamental principles of document control and configuration management. Therefore, you still need a design transfer procedure for Class 1 devices, but you don’t need to include the first element that relies upon design and development procedures.

If you have a Class 1 device, you must still comply with labeling requirements (i.e., 21 CFR 820.120). If your device is sterile, you must still validate and re-validate the process in accordance with 21 CFR 820.75. Class 1 products also require a device master record (DMR) in accordance with 21 CFR 820.181.

What is Not DHF required?

Needed for Class I (67%)

1. Approved Design Outputs
2. Labeling Procedure
3. Approved Labeling
4. Sterilization Validation Procedure
5. Sterilization Validation Protocol and Report
6. Design Transfer Procedure
7. Approved DMR
8. Design Change Procedure

Needed for Class II and Class I requiring Design Controls (100%)

1. Design Control Procedure
2. Design Plan
3. Approved Design Inputs
4. Approved Design Outputs
5. Labeling Procedure
6. Approved Labeling
7. Sterilization Validation Procedure
8. Sterilization Validation Protocol and Report
9. Design Transfer Procedure
10. Evidence of at least 1 Design Review
11. Approved DMR
12. Design Change Procedure

Therefore, although you do not technically have to have a DHF for a Class 1 products, the difference between the two categories is the following elements:

1. Design Control Procedure
2. Design Plan
3. Approved Design Inputs
4. Evidence of at least 1 Design Review

When an FDA inspection occurs, the investigator will review your design control procedure and then audit your DHF in accordance with your design plan.

When you have a Class 1 device, you are not typically inspected unless there is a problem. When ORA inspectors perform an inspection for Class 1 devices, the inspector looks for evidence of items in the first list.

If you are interested in learning more about design history files (DHF), please check out our DHF webinar.

Article overviews of the new MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 for clinical evaluation of medical devices, including a quality plan to comply with the latest revision.

What’s new in MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 for clinical evaluations?

The third and fourth revisions both give manufacturers three choices: 1) a clinical literature review, 2) performing a clinical study, and 3) a combination of literature review and performing a clinical study. However, the fourth revision is completely re-written. The fourth edition is 19 pages longer, and it is now much harder to use the “literature only” route. The fourth revision includes stringent requirements for demonstrating equivalence between another device and your device. Therefore, many companies are now struggling to update their clinical evaluation reports to satisfy this new guidance document.

Overview of the content in MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4

The third and fourth revisions of the guidance both have a 5-stage process for clinical evaluations, but in the third revision, only articulated stages 1 through 3 as stages leading up to writing a clinical evaluation report. The figure in section 6.3 of revision four now identifies a planning Stage 0, and the writing of the clinical evaluation report is referred to as Stage 4. Therefore, there is a lot more detail describing the planning and report writing stages than there was in revision 3. In addition, Stage 2 (Appraisal of clinical data) has been expanded from a single page to eight pages.

Based upon the above changes, you can infer that Competent Authorities have been unsatisfied with the quality of clinical data being provided to support the essential requirements for safety and performance. In turn, Notified Bodies are expected to be much more critical of the data presented, and more guidance is provided to manufacturers. There is also much more guidance and more examples provided in the appendices, while the 12-page clinical evaluation checklist that was provided in revision three has been replaced by one page of bulleted items for Notified Bodies to consider.

Demonstration of equivalence

It is no longer sufficient to list several devices that are similar to your device and include those devices in your search of clinical literature. Now you may only select one device for equivalence. You must also provide a thorough analysis of equivalence with that device based on clinical, technical, and biological characteristics. This comparison includes providing drawings or pictures to compare the size, shape, and elements of contact with the body.

Updating clinical evaluations

The new European Medical Device Regulations (EMDR) is expected to specify minimum requirements regarding the frequency of updating clinical evaluations, but MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4 discusses this in section 6.2.3. The frequency of updating your clinical evaluations must be justified and documented. Many considerations for this justification are discussed, but the end of that section indicates that devices with significant risks (e.g., implants) require at least annual updates to the clinical evaluation report. For devices with non-significant risks, and where the device is well established (e.g., a long clinical history), 2-5 years is the range of possible frequency. Longer than five years are not allowed.

Who should perform clinical evaluations?

Many device manufacturers are receiving nonconformities because the evaluators are not sufficiently qualified, or the qualifications are not documented. The qualifications must follow 6.4 of the new guidance, and the qualifications set by your company should be documented in your procedure for clinical evaluations. You will need to document these qualifications with more than an abstract, but you will also need to present a declaration of interest for each evaluator. Evaluators need knowledge in clinical study design, biostatistics, information management, regulatory requirements, and medical writing. Evaluators also need knowledge specific to the device, its technology, and its application. Evaluators must also have a higher education degree in the field and five years of experience or ten years of experience if they do not have a higher education degree. Due to the breadth and depth required of qualifications required, it may be necessary to assemble a team to perform evaluations.

Creating a quality plan for compliance with MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4

Seven steps need to be included in your quality plan for compliance with MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4:

1. update your external standards to replace MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 3 with MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4
2. revise your procedure and associated templates for a literature review and clinical evaluation report to meet the requirements of MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4
3. document the qualifications of evaluators for clinical evaluations
4. document a plan/schedule for updating your clinical evaluation reports for each product family
5. train evaluators, regulatory personnel and any applicable internal auditors on the requirements of MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev four and updated procedures and forms
6. begin updating clinical evaluations according to your plan
7. perform an internal audit of your clinical evaluation process

Learning more about MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev 4

If you are interested in learning more about this revised guidance document, please register for our live webinar on Friday, January 27 @ Noon EST by clicking on the button below.

This article explains the process for determining if a color change and other material changes require a new 510k before implementing the change.

I recently taught a frequently asked questions (FAQs) webinar, where I asked attendees to provide questions in advance of the webinar, and I answered the questions during the webinar. One of the attendees asked how to know if a new 510k is required if the only modification to a device is a color change.

New FDA guidance for device modifications

On August 8, 2016, the FDA released a new draft guidance document for device manufacturers regarding device modifications and when a new 510k is required. The current final guidance is titled “Deciding when to submit a 510(k) for a change to an existing device,” and that guidance is dated January 10, 1997. A draft guidance document on this topic was released several years ago, but that draft guidance was withdrawn in response to feedback from the industry. The new draft guidance document includes modified decision trees to help manufacturers decide which types of changes will require a new submission, but there are also examples provided in Appendix A. The most helpful part of the guidance, however, is Appendix B. Appendix B explains how to document changes properly—regardless of whether a change requires submission or not.

Decision Trees from the Guidance

There are five decision trees or flow charts provided in the new draft guidance. The purpose of each decision tree is identified below:

• Main flow chart
• Decision Tree A = labeling changes
• Decision Tree B = technology, engineering and performance changes
• Decision Tree C = material changes
• Decision Tree D = IVD product changes

How to apply Decision Tree C to a color change

Typically adding a colorant, or changing a colorant, does not negatively impact the strength of a device, but this is the first cautionary statement made at the beginning of the section for material changes. Therefore, if your device has a performance testing requirements that involve a component that is involved in a proposed color change, then you need to repeat the performance testing to verify that the color change has not negatively impacted the strength. Sometimes large concentrations of colorant result in weakening of plastics. Therefore, repeating some of the performance testing or providing data that supports the need for no further testing is expected. In the decision tree, this is addressed by question C5, “Could the change affect performance specifications?” If no, then you document the change, but a new 510k is not required. If yes, then you refer to decision tree question B5.

The next concern addressed by Decision Tree C is the biocompatibility of your modified device. If the material change of the device or device component comes into direct contact with the body, blood, or tissues, then biocompatibility risks must be assessed. If the change does create new or increased issues related to biocompatibility, then question C4.1 asks, “Has the manufacturer used the same material in a similar legally marketed device?” If the changed material has not been used previously for a similar application, then a new 510k is required—typically a Special 510k if only the material is changed and only biocompatibility needs to be assessed by the FDA.

Reference to FDA biocompatibility guidance

Within the guidance document, the FDA explains that you may want to refer to “Use of International Standard ISO 10993-1, ‘Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing,’” when you are answering question C4. This new final guidance was released on June 16, 2016, and the Office of Device Evaluation (ODE) appears to be focusing much more closely on biocompatibility since this new guidance released.

Examples of material changes from FDA guidance

There are six examples of material changes presented in the new draft guidance:

1. A slight change in polymer composition for a catheter = letter to file
2. Change in polymer for a catheter
   1. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by another manufacturer for a 510k cleared device with the same indications = new 510k submission
   2. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type and duration of contact = letter to file
   3. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type but shorter duration of contact = new 510k submission
   4. Change in a polymer for a catheter to a polymer already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type but longer duration of contact = letter to file
3. Change in the manufacturing method of catheter tubing (i.e., molding to extrusion) = new 510k submission
4. Change in material for a catheter
   1. The new polymer is already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type and same duration, but the sterilization method changes (i.e., gamma to EO) = new 510k submission
   2. The new polymer is already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type, duration, method of manufacturing (i.e., molding) and method of sterilization (i.e., EO) = letter to file
   3. The new polymer is already used by your company for another 510k cleared catheter of the same type, duration, method of manufacturing and sterilization, but the performance specifications are slightly different = letter to file (depends upon the impact of difference)
5. Change in the dental implant from the untreated surface to acid-etched = new 510k submission (may also be considered a design change)
6. The implantable device is marked temporarily with tape proven not to leave a residue = letter to file

Do you have other questions about biocompatibility?

On Thursday, December 1, @ 11:00 am EST, I will be hosting a new live webinar on the topic of biocompatibility. The webinar will address both requirements for 510k submissions and for CE Marking technical files. If you are interested in registering for that webinar, please click on the following link:

Do you have a question about your 510k submission?

If you have a question related to your 510k submission, you can submit your question to me and download the webinar recording for free by clicking on the following link:

I will respond to your question by email, but most questions make great future blog topics—like this one.

You might also be interested in our 510k course series:

You gain unlimited access to 24 webinars related to 510k submission.

Article explains how to write a clinical evaluation report (CER) for CE Marking Class 1 medical devices when there is little or no clinical study literature available. The history behind this European CE Marking regulatory requirement is explained as well.

In 2010 the European Medical Device Directive was updated to include many tougher regulatory requirements for medical devices of all types. One of this changes is criticized frequently by industry–the change to make essential requirement 14 to a general requirement for all devices. That requirement is now essential requirement 6a in Annex I of the current MDD (93/42/EEC as modified by 2007/47/EC). The general requirements are required for all devices–event products that do not require a Notified Body’s involvement.

Typical Search Strategy for a Class 1 Device

Class 1 devices do not typically have clinical studies performed for three reasons:

• the products are low in risk and therefore do not require clinical studies for regulatory approval
• the products have been on the market for a long time and therefore there is little innovation in these products
• clinical investigators are not interested in researching devices that have been used for a long time

Since there is typically no requirement for a clinical study for a Class 1 device, companies will perform a literature search in order to meet the requirements of Essential Requirement 6a. That search will typically result in articles that mention the device or a competitor device, but the device is typically just part of a clinical study that was performed for another device (i.e., the device of interest is merely an accessory). If there are clinical studies, the studies may be quite old and it may be more helpful to search for review articles first. In the end, you may end up finding no clinical studies for the type of device you are designing, but a clinical evaluation report is still required for CE Marking for Class 1 devices.

It may be painful for you and your company to conduct a clinical evaluation, even using the literature route, when there are no new clinical studies to find. However, the CE Marking regulations are written to address all devices and material innovations alone are driving the need for companies to reconsider the “state of the art” for even Class 1 devices. It is also important to consider emerging issues such as infection control with antibiotic resistant strains and the trend toward using disposable instruments such as drill bits.

Reference Articles for Clinical Evaluation Reports and PMS

I have published 3 previous blogs specifically on the topic of clinical studies and post-market surveillance over the past couple of years. Please click here if you are looking for more information on this topic.

Procedure/Template for Class 1 Device Clinical Evaluation Report (CER)

If you are looking for a procedure (SOP) and associated literature search protocol template for a clinical evaluation report (CER) please click here. The purpose of this 6-page procedure is to define the process for performing a clinical evaluation of literature in accordance with MEDDEV 2.7/1. There is also template provided for performing a literature search (i.e., TMP-004).

This article explains how to write a post-market surveillance plan for CE Marking and how to determine if a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study is required.

A post-market surveillance (PMS) plan is only required for the highest risk devices by the FDA (i.e., typically devices that require a PMA or premarket approval). For CE Marking, however, all product families are required to have evidence of post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) studies or a justification for why PMCF is not required.

Why is a post-market surveillance plan a “hot button” with auditors recently?

Post-Market surveillance is an area of emerging concern around the world. Not just a procedure for PMS, but an actual product-specific plan for gathering post-production data about your product or product family. Product registries, the anticipated launch of Eudamed, and the implementation of UDI regulations are part of this industry-wide movement. The FDA has articulated the US plan for strengthening PMS in a guidance document. At the same time, the European PMS efforts are being debated as a central part of the new European Medical Device Regulations.

The biggest mistake I see 

The biggest mistake I see is that manufacturers refer to their PMS procedure as the PMS plan for their product family, and they say that they do not need to perform a PMCF study because the device is similar to several other devices on the market. Manufacturers need to have a PMS plan that is specific to a product or family of products.

How often is post-market surveillance data collected?

Your post-market surveillance procedure needs to be updated to identify the frequency and product-specific nature of post-market surveillance for each product family, or a separate document needs to be created for each product family. For devices that are high-risk, implantable, or devices that have innovative characteristics, the manufacturer will need to perform some PMCF studies. Even products with clinical studies might require PMCF because the clinical studies may not cover changes to the device, accessories, and range of sizes. MEDDEV 2.12/2 provides guidance on the requirements for PMCF studies, but most companies manufacturing moderate-risk devices do not have experience obtaining patient consent to access medical records to collect PMCF data–such as postoperative follow-up data.

Additional Resources

Medical Device Academy has created a post-market surveillance plan template that you can download for free. If you are looking for a procedure for post-market surveillance, please click here. If you are interested in learning more about PMS and PMCF studies, we also have a webinar on this topic.

This article explains how to determine if your medical device requires a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study for CE Marking. This is currently a non-existent requirement for most 510k submissions. Still, it is an area of emerging concern for all medical device regulations, and this article explains why substantial equivalence is not enough.

For CE Marking applications of medical devices, all medical devices must have evidence of a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study protocol or a justification for why a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study is not required. The biggest mistakes I see are that manufacturers refer to their post-market surveillance (PMS) procedure as the post-market surveillance (PMS) plan for their product family. They say they do not need to perform a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study because the device is similar to several other devices on the market (i.e., substantially equivalent).

Why Substantial Equivalence Isn’t Enough

This rationale fails the technical review of most CE Marking submissions because although products can be approved for CE Marking based upon substantial equivalence, the manufacturer must continue to monitor the performance of the device after the product is launched to make sure of two critical things:

1. Is the substantially equivalent device as safe and efficacious as the predicate device?
2. Are there new risks that are identified when the device is used for a long duration (e.g., implanted) by a broader user population or to treat a broader patient population / broader indication for use?

A post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study MIGHT be needed

If you have a high-risk device that is implantable, has an innovative design, and you are using moon rocks for the patient contacting materials, you need a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study. If you make a generic version of a sterile bandage with a cartoon character for decoration, you don’t need a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study. Unfortunately, most products fall into the “might be needed” category rather than a “yes” or “no.” If you have any experience in regulatory affairs, you know that regulators love guidance documents and systematic evaluation methods. Here’s my systematic method of evaluation…

Step-by-Step Recommendations

Step 1 – Read MEDDEV 2.12/2.

Step 2 – Make a table with each of the 17 “might be needed” categories from the guidance document in the far left column.

Step 3 – In the second column, indicate whether the risk category from the table applies to your device–” yes” or “n/a.”

Step 4 – As with all valuable checklists, you must explain your non-applicability rationale wherever the category doesn’t apply. Enter your explanation in the third column next to the “n/a”…PS – nobody cares if the “n/a” is capitalized.

Step 5 – If you typed “yes” in the second column, then you need to provide a cross-reference to the information in your technical file that explains how you address this risk. There are three places you can look: 1) your design requirements trace matrix (if you have one that looks like mine), 2) as a risk control in your risk analysis that you performed during the design process before “design freeze”, and 3) in your clinical evaluation report. Ideally, you can easily cross-reference to a section of your controlled document that is in outline format.

Note: Now, you have another reason to make that document a controlled document with an outline format.

Step 6 – After you add a cross-reference to the risk control(s) in your table, you need to indicate whether the risk controls are adequate. “Yes” is probably the answer only if you can cross-reference to a state-of-the-art guidance document or harmonized standard that has been implemented as a pre-market risk control to evaluate the specific risk. The tests are seldom adequate for the longevity of implants, usability by all intended users, and patient satisfaction, while usability and patient selection are often only evaluated by clinical studies. If the tests and pre-market clinical studies are not adequate, then “No” is your answer, and you need to conduct a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study to address that specific residual risk. 

Step 7 – If you indicate that your pre-market risk controls are adequate, then in your post-market surveillance plan, you can indicate “no post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study required.” However, if you cannot verify that your pre-market risk controls adequately address one of the 17 risk categories identified in MEDDEV 2.12/2, you may need a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study.

When do existing products suddenly develop the need for a post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study?

Even products with pre-market clinical studies might require post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) because the clinical studies may not cover changes to the device, accessories, and range of sizes. Additionally, specific risks of implantable products cannot be assessed during the average duration of a clinical study (e.g., how long will an implant last). MEDDEV 2.12/2 provides guidance on the requirements for post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) studies. Still, most companies manufacturing moderate-risk devices do not have experience obtaining patient consent to access medical records to collect post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) data–such as postoperative follow-up data. If you don’t have expertise in collecting this patient-specific data in a compliant way, you should consult a clinical research associate (CRA) or engage a clinical research organization (CRO). My procedure on clinical studies (SYS-009) explains some of the basics.

PMCF can also help you develop new products

PMS data is also required as an input to your design and development process. If you identify potential adverse events (I.e., incidents that require regulatory reporting), then you should specifically design your PMCF study to collect this safety data. Investigations of adverse events and potential adverse events can be used to help you design a safer technology for the next generation of your product. In fact, the FDA fosters this type of innovation through the Safer Technologies Program (i.e., STeP). 

Additional Resources

I also wrote an article in BoneZone: “Post-Market Studies in Lieu of Clinical Studies”. This article emphasized the increasing need for clinical data for device approval and reimbursement, but it focused on using post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) study data as an alternative to conducting a traditional, pre-market clinical study.

Procedures & Training Related to PMCF

The following procedures and training are available for purchase from our website:

1. Post-Market Surveillance Procedure
2. PMCF Webinar
3. Clinical Evaluation Report (CER) Procedure