Impact of Rule 11 on the European Medical Software Landscape: Analysis of EUDAMED and Further Databases Three Years After MDR Implementation.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-28 DOI:10.1007/s43441-025-00747-5
Arndt A Schmitz, Miriam Font-Nieves, Toumani Doucouré, Hans-Peter Podhaisky
{"title":"Impact of Rule 11 on the European Medical Software Landscape: Analysis of EUDAMED and Further Databases Three Years After MDR Implementation.","authors":"Arndt A Schmitz, Miriam Font-Nieves, Toumani Doucouré, Hans-Peter Podhaisky","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00747-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medicine is increasingly supported by software, with digital health technologies offering innovative ways to capture insights and drive therapies. Globally, medical device software must follow regulatory processes based on risk classification. The introduction of MDR represents a significant shift in risk-based classification for Medical Devices in Europe, including classification Rule 11 for software, which has caused significant discussions among European regulators. Three years after implementation, we conducted a systematic impact assessment of MDR classification Rule 11 for MDSW through a qualitative and quantitative analysis of over 2000 software entries from the European Medical Device database, complemented by data from other public databases such as the German DiGA directory and mHealthBELGIUM. Our results indicate that classification Rule 11 of the MDR results in a narrow bandwidth for class I software, whereas this used to be the most frequent classification for software under the MDD: while most of legacy software in EUDAMED falls in the lowest risk category as MDD Class I (53%), the situation reverses after the implementation of MDR with the most entries in Class IIa (55%). Analyzing the legacy MDD patient apps in Germany implies that three quarters will have to re-classify as MDR Class IIa at the end of the transition period in 2028. A comparison of the European and US regulatory landscapes, along with a systematic review of software features for Class I vs. Class IIa products, explains our findings and enables us to recommend a regulatory strategy for developing MDSW compliant with MDR Class I rules, ensuring fast access to the European market.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":"365-378"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00747-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medicine is increasingly supported by software, with digital health technologies offering innovative ways to capture insights and drive therapies. Globally, medical device software must follow regulatory processes based on risk classification. The introduction of MDR represents a significant shift in risk-based classification for Medical Devices in Europe, including classification Rule 11 for software, which has caused significant discussions among European regulators. Three years after implementation, we conducted a systematic impact assessment of MDR classification Rule 11 for MDSW through a qualitative and quantitative analysis of over 2000 software entries from the European Medical Device database, complemented by data from other public databases such as the German DiGA directory and mHealthBELGIUM. Our results indicate that classification Rule 11 of the MDR results in a narrow bandwidth for class I software, whereas this used to be the most frequent classification for software under the MDD: while most of legacy software in EUDAMED falls in the lowest risk category as MDD Class I (53%), the situation reverses after the implementation of MDR with the most entries in Class IIa (55%). Analyzing the legacy MDD patient apps in Germany implies that three quarters will have to re-classify as MDR Class IIa at the end of the transition period in 2028. A comparison of the European and US regulatory landscapes, along with a systematic review of software features for Class I vs. Class IIa products, explains our findings and enables us to recommend a regulatory strategy for developing MDSW compliant with MDR Class I rules, ensuring fast access to the European market.

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
规则11对欧洲医疗软件景观的影响:MDR实施三年后EUDAMED和进一步数据库的分析。
医学越来越多地得到软件的支持,数字健康技术提供了获取见解和推动治疗的创新方法。在全球范围内,医疗设备软件必须遵循基于风险分类的监管流程。MDR的引入代表了欧洲医疗器械基于风险分类的重大转变,包括软件分类规则11,这在欧洲监管机构之间引起了重大讨论。实施三年后,我们通过对来自欧洲医疗器械数据库的2000多个软件条目进行定性和定量分析,并辅以来自其他公共数据库(如德国DiGA目录和mHealthBELGIUM)的数据,对MDSW的MDR分类规则11进行了系统的影响评估。我们的研究结果表明,MDR的分类规则11导致I类软件的带宽较窄,而这曾经是MDD下最常见的软件分类:虽然EUDAMED中的大多数遗留软件属于MDD I类风险最低的类别(53%),但在MDR实施后,情况发生了逆转,IIa类条目最多(55%)。分析德国遗留的MDD患者应用程序表明,在2028年过渡期结束时,四分之三的MDR将不得不重新分类为IIa类。欧洲和美国监管格局的比较,以及对I类和IIa类产品的软件功能的系统回顾,解释了我们的发现,并使我们能够推荐符合MDR I类规则的MDSW开发监管策略,确保快速进入欧洲市场。
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
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
期刊最新文献
Missing Data Handling in the Application of Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison. Does the Epoch-Making Guideline Need Instructions for Use?: Analyzing Adverse Events Collected through Selective Safety Data Collection Under ICH E19 Guideline with Addressing Implementation Considerations. The Future of Biologics: Lessons from Hatch-Waxman. Power Calculation for Non-inferiority Test Based on Linear Combination of Two Correlated Binary Endpoints. "Measurement or Judgment?" Reconsidering Data Quality and Inference in EudraVigilance.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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