EU's Medical Device Expert Panels: Analysis of Membership and Published Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) Results.

Abstract

Background: The new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) places greater importance on the role of clinical evidence to establish safety and performance. Article 54 of the MDR calls for expert committees to independently review the scientific, technical, and clinical evidence supporting the market authorization of certain novel devices independently from the established process of Notified Body reviews. These experts provide a review and opinion that ultimately is taken into consideration alongside the information reviewed by the Notified Body during the review process. Four expert committees (General and Plastic Surgery and Dentistry; Orthopaedics, Traumatology, Rehabilitation, Rheumatology; Circulatory System; and Neurology) have published at least one Scientific Opinion (SO) under the Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) in 2021-2022.

Methods: The four expert committees with published CECP opinions were reviewed to assess the academic backgrounds and professional expertise of each member with respect to clinical, technical, and biological domains on a 0-2 scale for each domain. A content review was conducted on the 10 CECP opinions published by these committees to assess their consistency with the goals and outcome expectations set by the MDR. The extent of content related to each of the clinical, technical, and biological domains was also assessed on a 0-2 scale.

Results: All committees were composed primarily by members with strong clinical expertise, but only a few had strong technical and biological expertise. Across committees, the average scores of members related to academic background and professional expertise both ranged from 1.64 to 2.00 in the clinical domain, but only 0-0.15 and 0.15-0.69, respectively, in the biological domain, and 0.12-0.55 and 0.23-0.73, respectively, in the technical domain. A content review for the 10 SOs showed that all opinions focused exclusively or primarily on the clinical evidence. Three contained a modest amount of additional text directed at technical/engineering issues and five at biological issues.

Conclusion: Expert committees are composed predominantly of expert clinical reviewers but have many fewer members with significant technical or biological expertise. This may limit the ability of the committees to evaluate the significant technical and biological risks that are often best understood by preclinical testing. Broadening the expertise across the committees may improve the depth of their benefit/risk critiques.