Regulatory perspectives on post-market evidence generation schemes for high-risk medical devices: a systematic review.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1080/14737167.2024.2431234
Jesús Aranda, Agnieszka Dobrzynska, Maria Piedad Rosario-Lozano, Juan Carlos Rejón-Parrilla, David Epstein, Juan Antonio Blasco-Amaro
{"title":"Regulatory perspectives on post-market evidence generation schemes for high-risk medical devices: a systematic review.","authors":"Jesús Aranda, Agnieszka Dobrzynska, Maria Piedad Rosario-Lozano, Juan Carlos Rejón-Parrilla, David Epstein, Juan Antonio Blasco-Amaro","doi":"10.1080/14737167.2024.2431234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The new European Medical Device Regulation has raised the bar for the clinical evaluation of medical devices to gain marketing authorization by Notified Bodies (NBs) regarding certificates of conformity in Europe. Restrictions applied for High-risk medical devices (HRMD) may require further evidence generation. Some other jurisdictions apply similar schemes that may be useful to the European Union. This systematic review focused on extracting lessons from similar schemes worldwide to the European context.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature was performed based on 'Device approval' and 'conditional approval' keywords. Databases such as Medline, Embase, and WoS retrieved documents assessed with the AMSTAR-2 checklist. A descriptive and narrative analysis was conducted detailed in CRD42023431233 - PROSPERO.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We obtained eight documents where conditional approvals for High-risk medical devices in the United States of America, China, and Canada were subject to generate further evidence. In Europe, NBs impose restrictions or limitations to certificates of conformity instead.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Further development of policies, supporting access to HRMD subject to further evidence generation, would help Europe in further defining the appropriate situations for the application of determined regulatory routes, to enhance access to HRMD with promising evidence and further evidence development.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42023431233).</p>","PeriodicalId":12244,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2024.2431234","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The new European Medical Device Regulation has raised the bar for the clinical evaluation of medical devices to gain marketing authorization by Notified Bodies (NBs) regarding certificates of conformity in Europe. Restrictions applied for High-risk medical devices (HRMD) may require further evidence generation. Some other jurisdictions apply similar schemes that may be useful to the European Union. This systematic review focused on extracting lessons from similar schemes worldwide to the European context.

Methods: A systematic review of peer-reviewed and gray literature was performed based on 'Device approval' and 'conditional approval' keywords. Databases such as Medline, Embase, and WoS retrieved documents assessed with the AMSTAR-2 checklist. A descriptive and narrative analysis was conducted detailed in CRD42023431233 - PROSPERO.

Results: We obtained eight documents where conditional approvals for High-risk medical devices in the United States of America, China, and Canada were subject to generate further evidence. In Europe, NBs impose restrictions or limitations to certificates of conformity instead.

Conclusion: Further development of policies, supporting access to HRMD subject to further evidence generation, would help Europe in further defining the appropriate situations for the application of determined regulatory routes, to enhance access to HRMD with promising evidence and further evidence development.

Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023431233).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对高风险医疗器械上市后证据生成方案的监管观点:系统综述。
导言:新的欧洲医疗器械法规提高了医疗器械临床评估的门槛,以获得公告机构(NBs)关于欧洲合格证书的营销授权。适用于高风险医疗器械(HRMD)的限制可能需要进一步生成证据。其他一些司法管辖区也采用类似的方案,可能对欧盟有用。这篇系统综述的重点是从世界各地的类似计划中吸取教训。方法:以“器械审批”和“有条件审批”为关键词,对同行评审文献和灰色文献进行系统综述。Medline、Embase和WoS等数据库检索了使用AMSTAR-2检查表评估的文档。在CRD42023431233 - PROSPERO中进行了详细的描述性和叙述性分析。结果:我们获得了美国、中国和加拿大高风险医疗器械有条件批准的八份文件,这些文件将产生进一步的证据。在欧洲,国家统计局对合格证书施加限制或限制。结论:进一步制定政策,支持在进一步证据产生的情况下获得HRMD,将有助于欧洲进一步确定适用已确定的监管路线的适当情况,以有希望的证据和进一步的证据开发来加强HRMD的获得。注册:普洛斯彼罗(CRD42023431233)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research (ISSN 1473-7167) provides expert reviews on cost-benefit and pharmacoeconomic issues relating to the clinical use of drugs and therapeutic approaches. Coverage includes pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life research, therapeutic outcomes, evidence-based medicine and cost-benefit research. All articles are subject to rigorous peer-review. The journal adopts the unique Expert Review article format, offering a complete overview of current thinking in a key technology area, research or clinical practice, augmented by the following sections: Expert Opinion – a personal view of the data presented in the article, a discussion on the developments that are likely to be important in the future, and the avenues of research likely to become exciting as further studies yield more detailed results Article Highlights – an executive summary of the author’s most critical points.
期刊最新文献
Preferences of nurses in the United Kingdom for attributes of pediatric hexavalent vaccines: a discrete-choice experiment. Patient-relevance of outcome measures in breast cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional comparative analysis of patient preferences and trials conducted between 2014 and 2024. Evaluation of biological drug consumption in Italy during 2022: a comparative analysis between two healthcare facilities. Cost comparison of F(ab')2 and Fab antivenoms for pit viper envenomation in the United States: a real-world analysis. Autologous stem-cell transplantation and maintenance therapy for transplant-eligible multiple myeloma patients: cost-effectiveness analysis based on a network meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1