The IDEAL framework for surgical robotics: development, comparative evaluation and long-term monitoring.

The next generation of surgical robotics is poised to disrupt healthcare systems worldwide, requiring new frameworks for evaluation. However, evaluation during a surgical robot's development is challenging due to their complex evolving nature, potential for wider system disruption and integration with complementary technologies like artificial intelligence. Comparative clinical studies require attention to intervention context, learning curves and standardized outcomes. Long-term monitoring needs to transition toward collaborative, transparent and inclusive consortiums for real-world data collection. Here, the Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment and Long-term monitoring (IDEAL) Robotics Colloquium proposes recommendations for evaluation during development, comparative study and clinical monitoring of surgical robots-providing practical recommendations for developers, clinicians, patients and healthcare systems. Multiple perspectives are considered, including economics, surgical training, human factors, ethics, patient perspectives and sustainability. Further work is needed on standardized metrics, health economic assessment models and global applicability of recommendations.

A European regulatory pathway for Tidepool loop following clearance in the United States?

The recent clearance by the United States Food and Drug Administration of Tidepool Loop sets an important precedent within the medical device landscape. For the first time, an automated insulin delivery mobile application-based on an algorithm initially designed and developed by users -has been recognised as safe and effective by a regulatory body. The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly, we map out the regulatory pathways and processes that were navigated by Tidepool, the non-profit behind Tidepool Loop, in order to make this landmark moment possible. Secondly, we set out potential approvals processes in the European Union and United Kingdom with a view to examining the challenges to obtaining regulatory clearance for Tidepool Loop in these jurisdictions. In so doing, we highlight the significant differences, not only between the United States and European systems but also between the European Union and Great Britain systems. We conclude by arguing that the complexity encountered when seeking to introduce an innovative solution in different regulatory systems has the potential to act as a disincentive to open source developers from seeking regulatory approvals for such technologies in the future.

Evidence from clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Meeting increased regulatory requirements for clinical evaluation of medical devices marketed in Europe in accordance with the Medical Device Regulation (EU 2017/745) is challenging, particularly for high-risk devices used in children. METHODS: Within the CORE-MD project, we performed a scoping review on evidence from clinical trials investigating high-risk paediatric medical devices used in paediatric cardiology, diabetology, orthopaedics and surgery, in patients aged 0-21 years. We searched Medline and Embase from 1st January 2017 to 9th November 2022. RESULTS: From 1692 records screened, 99 trials were included. Most were multicentre studies performed in North America and Europe that mainly had evaluated medical devices from the specialty of diabetology. Most had enrolled adolescents and 39% of trials included both children and adults. Randomized controlled trials accounted for 38% of the sample. Other frequently used designs were before-after studies (21%) and crossover trials (20%). Included trials were mainly small, with a sample size <100 participants in 64% of the studies. Most frequently assessed outcomes were efficacy and effectiveness as well as safety. CONCLUSION: Within the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were of various designs, often lacked a concurrent control group, and recruited few infants and young children. IMPACT: In the assessed sample, clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children were mainly small, with variable study designs (often without concurrent control), and they mostly enrolled adolescents. We provide a systematic summary of methodologies applied in clinical trials of medical devices in the paediatric population, reflecting obstacles in this research area that make it challenging to conduct adequately powered randomized controlled trials. In view of changing European regulations and related concerns about shortages of high-risk medical devices for children, our findings may assist competent authorities in setting realistic requirements for the evidence level to support device conformity certification.

Quality and transparency of evidence for implantable cardiovascular medical devices assessed by the CORE-MD consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The European Union Medical Device Regulation 2017/745 challenges key stakeholders to follow transparent and rigorous approaches to the clinical evaluation of medical devices. The purpose of this study is a systematic evaluation of published clinical evidence underlying selected high-risk cardiovascular medical devices before and after market access in the European Union (CE-marking) between 2000 and 2021. METHODS: Pre-specified strategies were applied to identify published studies of prospective design evaluating 71 high-risk cardiovascular devices in seven different classes (bioresorbable coronary scaffolds, left atrial appendage occlusion devices, transcatheter aortic valve implantation systems, transcatheter mitral valve repair/replacement systems, surgical aortic and mitral heart valves, leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator). The search time span covered 20 years (2000-21). Details of study design, patient population, intervention(s), and primary outcome(s) were summarized and assessed with respect to timing of the corresponding CE-mark approval. RESULTS: At least one prospective clinical trial was identified for 70% (50/71) of the pre-specified devices. Overall, 473 reports of 308 prospectively designed studies (enrolling 97 886 individuals) were deemed eligible, including 81% (251/308) prospective non-randomized clinical trials (66 186 individuals) and 19% (57/308) randomized clinical trials (31 700 individuals). Pre-registration of the study protocol was available in 49% (150/308) studies, and 16% (48/308) had a peer-reviewed publicly available protocol. Device-related adverse events were evaluated in 82% (253/308) of studies. An outcome adjudication process was reported in 39% (120/308) of the studies. Sample size was larger for randomized in comparison to non-randomized trials (median of 304 vs. 100 individuals, P < .001). No randomized clinical trial published before CE-mark approval for any of the devices was identified. Non-randomized clinical trials were predominantly published after the corresponding CE-mark approval of the device under evaluation (89%, 224/251). Sample sizes were smaller for studies published before (median of 31 individuals) than after (median of 135 individuals) CE-mark approval (P < .001). Clinical trials with larger sample sizes (>50 individuals) and those with longer recruitment periods were more likely to be published after CE-mark approval, and were more frequent during the period 2016-21. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity and quality of publicly available data from prospective clinical investigations across selected categories of cardiovascular devices, before and after CE approval during the period 2000-21, were deemed insufficient. The majority of studies was non-randomized, with increased risk of bias, and performed in small populations without provision of power calculations, and none of the reviewed devices had randomized trial results published prior to CE-mark certification.

Clinical investigations to evaluate high-risk orthopaedic devices: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed medical literature.

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to give an overview of clinical investigations regarding hip and knee arthroplasty implants published in peer-reviewed scientific medical journals before entry into force of the EU Medical Device Regulation in May 2021. Methods: We systematically reviewed the medical literature for a random selection of hip and knee implants to identify all peer-reviewed clinical investigations published within 10 years before and up to 20 years after regulatory approval. We report study characteristics, methodologies, outcomes, measures to prevent bias, and timing of clinical investigations of 30 current implants. The review process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: We identified 2912 publications and finally included 151 papers published between 1995 and 2021 (63 on hip stems, 34 on hip cups, and 54 on knee systems). We identified no clinical studies published before Conformité Européene (CE)-marking for any selected device, and no studies even up to 20 years after CE-marking in one-quarter of devices. There were very few randomized controlled trials, and registry-based studies generally had larger sample sizes and better methodology. Conclusion: The peer-reviewed literature alone is insufficient as a source of clinical investigations of these high-risk devices intended for life-long use. A more systematic, efficient, and faster way to evaluate safety and performance is necessary. Using a phased introduction approach, nesting comparative studies of observational and experimental design in existing registries, increasing the use of benefit measures, and accelerating surrogate outcomes research will help to minimize risks and maximize benefits.

European expert recommendations on clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices for children.

Several high-risk medical devices for children have become unavailable in the European Union (EU), since requirements and costs for device certification increased markedly due to the EU Medical Device Regulation. The EU-funded CORE-MD project held a workshop in January 2023 with experts from various child health specialties, representatives of European paediatric associations, a regulatory authority and the European Commission Directorate General Health and Food Safety. A virtual follow-up meeting took place in March 2023. We developed recommendations for investigation of high-risk medical devices for children building on participants' expertise and results of a scoping review of clinical trials on high-risk medical devices in children. Approaches for evaluating and certifying high-risk medical devices for market introduction are proposed.

Learning From Experience and Finding the Right Balance in the Governance of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Health Technologies.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning medical tools have the potential to be transformative in care delivery; however, this change will only be realized if accompanied by effective governance that ensures patient safety and public trust. Recent digital health initiatives have called for tighter governance of digital health. A correct balance must be found between ensuring product safety and performance while also enabling the innovation needed to deliver better approaches for patients and affordable efficient health care for society. This requires innovative, fit-for-purpose approaches to regulation. Digital health technologies, particularly AI-based tools, pose specific challenges to the development and implementation of functional regulation. The approaches of regulatory science and "better regulation" have a critical role in developing and evaluating solutions to these problems and ensuring effective implementation. We describe the divergent approaches of the European Union and the United States in the implementation of new regulatory approaches in digital health, and we consider the United Kingdom as a third example, which is in a unique position of developing a new post-Brexit regulatory framework.

Can Apple and Google continue as health app gatekeepers as well as distributors and developers?

Mobile apps are the primary means by which consumers access digital health and wellness software, with delivery dominated by the 'Apple App Store' and the 'Google Play Store'. Through these virtual storefronts Apple and Google act as the distributor (and sometimes, importer) of many thousands of health and wellness apps into the EU, some of which have a medical purpose. As a result of changes to EU law which came into effect in May 2021, they must now ensure that apps are compliant with medical devices regulation and to inform authorities of serious incidents arising from their use. The extent to which these new rules are being complied with in practice is uneven, and in some areas unclear. In light of EU legislation related to competition, which came into effect in November 2022, it is also unclear how conflicts of interest can be managed between Apple and Google's roles as gateway duopoly importers and distributors whilst also developers of their own competitive health products. Finally, with the proposed European health data space regulation, wellness apps will be voluntarily registered and labelled in a fashion more like medical devices than consumer software. We explore the implications of these new regulations and propose future models that could resolve the apparent conflicts. All stakeholders would benefit from improved app store models to sustainably evolve safer, better, and fairer provision of digital health applications in the EU. As EU legislation comes into force it could serve as a template for other regions globally.

The European Medical Device Regulation-What Biomedical Engineers Need to Know.

The Medical Device Regulation (EU) 745/2017 (MDR) has replaced the medical device directives which were in place since the early 1990s. MDR introduces a number of changes of relevance to biomedical engineers who work in healthcare institutions or with medical devices. This includes changes relating to devices produced in healthcare institutions, custom-made devices, single use devices, devices without an intended medical purpose, clinical investigations and device traceability. There are also challenges in implementation of the MDR, with a shortage of available notified bodies needed to conduct conformity assessment, with a consequent risk of product unavailability. Understanding these changes is important as implementing new requirements in practice may require additional resources or the introduction of new processes or systems.

Improved clinical investigation and evaluation of high-risk medical devices: the rationale and objectives of CORE-MD (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices).

In the European Union (EU), the delivery of health services is a national responsibility but there are concerted actions between member states to protect public health. Approval of pharmaceutical products is the responsibility of the European Medicines Agency, while authorising the placing on the market of medical devices is decentralised to independent 'conformity assessment' organisations called notified bodies. The first legal basis for an EU system of evaluating medical devices and approving their market access was the Medical Device Directive, from the 1990s. Uncertainties about clinical evidence requirements, among other reasons, led to the EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) that has applied since May 2021. It provides general principles for clinical investigations but few methodological details - which challenges responsible authorities to set appropriate balances between regulation and innovation, pre- and post-market studies, and clinical trials and real-world evidence. Scientific experts should advise on methods and standards for assessing and approving new high-risk devices, and safety, efficacy, and transparency of evidence should be paramount. The European Commission recently awarded a Horizon 2020 grant to a consortium led by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Federation of National Associations of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, that will review methodologies of clinical investigations, advise on study designs, and develop recommendations for aggregating clinical data from registries and other real-world sources. The CORE-MD project (Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices) will run until March 2024. Here, we describe how it may contribute to the development of regulatory science in Europe. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:839-849. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210081.

New medical device regulations: the regulator's view.

Advances in medical device technology have been dramatic in recent years resulting in both an increased number of medical devices and an increase in the invasiveness and critical function which devices perform. Two new regulations entered into force in Europe in May 2017, the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) and the In Vitro Diagnostic Device Regulation (IVDR). These regulations will replace the current directives over the coming years. These regulations, for the first time introduce requirements relating to registries.Medical device manufacturers are required to have systematic methods for examining their devices once available on the market, by systematically gathering, recording and analysing data on safety and performance.Registries can assist public health protection in very practical ways, for example, to help urgently identify patients or devices. Registries can also be powerful tools for collecting and appraising real-world clinical evidence concerning medical devices. Clinical investigations are limited in terms of the sample size and the duration of follow-up which can reasonably be expected. Registries may also be the only available tool to examine rare adverse effects, sub-populations or for time durations which it is not possible or feasible to study in a clinical investigation. By ensuring that a core dataset is collected which can be compared to other registries or trial data, it is possible to pool data to better examine outcomes. There are a range of excellent initiatives which have aimed at ensuring the appropriate regulatory application of registry data. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180061.