FDA Regulation and Approval of Medical Devices: 1976-2020.

Importance: US law generally requires testing of high-risk medical devices prior to approval, as well as premarket evaluation of moderate-risk medical devices, with the goal of ensuring that the benefits of these products exceed their risks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempts to balance the need for evidence generation with an approval process that facilitates access and encourages innovation. Objective: To review the development of laws and standards affecting the evaluation and oversight of medical devices by the US regulatory system and the outcomes of this system from 1976 to 2020. Evidence Review: Laws enacted by US Congress and regulations promulgated by the FDA through 2020; databases maintained by the FDA of device authorizations from 1976 to 2020; and annual reports of user fees paid to the FDA by industry. Findings: Since Congress and the FDA initiated premarket review of medical devices in 1976, some fundamental innovations in the device regulation system have included special pathways to accelerate availability of investigational devices, more flexible evidence and review requirements, and increased funding to the FDA through industry-paid user fees. From 1987 to 2020, the annual number of novel devices granted premarket approval (which excludes supplements) ranged from 8 to 56 (median, 32), and the number of clearances for 510(k) devices (those that are "substantially equivalent" to marketed devices) ranged from 2804 to 5762 (median, 3404). User fee funding for devices was established in 2002 and annual fees collected increased from $30 million in 2003 (in 2019 dollars) to more than $208 million in 2019; this represented 43% of FDA funding related to the review of medical devices. Although many new devices have led to considerable patient benefit, such as hypodermic needles and magnetic resonance imaging machines, important adverse events caused by some devices, such as an implanted device for birth control and a surgical mesh implant for pelvic organ prolapse, have led to calls to reexamine the regulatory system for such products. Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 45 years, medical device regulation has become more complex, with more regulatory pathways and greater variations in the evidence and controls required for authorization. Increased FDA support from industry and concern about flexible authorization requirements reflect the tension between efficient access and the need for assurances that products will safely benefit patients.

When Does Stand-Alone Software Qualify as a Medical Device in the European Union?-The Cjeu's Decision in Snitem and What it Implies for the Next Generation of Medical Devices.

This contribution analyses the first decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the qualification and regulation of stand-alone software as medical devices. Referring to the facts of the case and the applicable European Union (EU) regulatory framework, the Court specifically found that prescription support software may constitute a medical device. This would even be the case where the software does not act directly in or on the human body. Yet, according to the CJEU, it is necessary that the intended purpose falls within one or more of the 'medical purpose' categories of the regulatory definition of 'medical device'. The case has important implications, not only for specific legal debates, but it also signifies a paradigm shift with a rapidly increasing digitalisation of the health and life sciences. This highlights the demand for continuous debates over the necessary evolution of the regulatory framework applying to the interface of medical artificial intelligence (AI) and Big Data.

[Legal framework for E­health products on the European market]. / Medizinprodukterechtliche Rahmenbedingungen für E­Health-Produkte im europäischen Wirtschaftsraum.

Legitimately categorizing software in the healthcare sector is complex. According to European medical devices law, software can be considered a medical device. The decisive factor is whether the software is used for directly controlling a therapeutic or diagnostic medical device or as stand-alone software that achieves specific medical purposes, as they are described in the legal definition of a medical device. A contribution of the software to diagnosis or therapy can be sufficient for the categorization; it does not have to provide the complete diagnosis or the complete therapy itself.This principle will continue to be the same with the new Regulation on Medical Devices (EU) 2017/745, even though the classification rules have been more closely and more specifically tailored to software and more stringent requirements for essential safety and performance requirements have to be met.

[Software as medical devices/medical apps : Tasks, requirements, and experiences from the point of view of a competent authority]. / Medizinische Software/Medical Apps : Aufgaben, Anforderungen und Erfahrungen aus Sicht einer Überwachungsbehörde.

Software can be classified as a medical device according to the Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC. The number of software products and medical apps is continuously increasing and so too is the use in health institutions (e. g., in hospitals and doctors' surgeries) for diagnosis and therapy.Different aspects of standalone software and medical apps from the perspective of the authority responsible are presented. The quality system implemented to establish a risk-based systematic inspection and supervision of manufacturers is discussed. The legal framework, as well as additional standards that are the basis for inspection, are outlined. The article highlights special aspects that occur during inspection like verification of software and interfaces, and the clinical evaluation of software. The Bezirksregierung, as the local government authority responsible in North Rhine-Westphalia, is also in charge of inspection of health institutions. Therefore this article is not limited to the manufacturers placing the software on the market, but in addition it describes the management and use of software as a medical device in hospitals.The future legal framework, the Medical Device Regulation, will strengthen the requirements and engage notified bodies more than today in the conformity assessment of software as a medical device.Manufacturers, health institutions, notified bodies and the authorities responsible are in charge of intensifying their efforts towards software as a medical device. Mutual information, improvement of skills, and inspections will lead to compliance with regulatory requirements.

[Qualification and classification of medical apps : What should be noted and what is BfArM's contribution?] / Abgrenzung und Klassifizierung von Medical Apps : Was ist zu beachten und welche Unterstützung bietet das BfArM?

Smartphones and tablets with their nearly unlimited number of different applications have become an integral part of everyday life. Thus, mobile devices and applications have also found their way into the healthcare sector.For developers, manufacturers, or users as well, it is often difficult to decide whether a mobile health application is a medical device.In this context, it is extremely important for manufacturers to decide at an early stage of the development whether the product is to be introduced into the market as a medical device and is therefore subject to the legislation on medical devices.This article first presents the regulatory framework and subsequently introduces the reader to the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices' (BfArM) view of the criteria for differentiating between apps as non-medical products and apps as medical apps as well as the classification thereof. Various examples are presented to demonstrate how these criteria are applied practically and options that support developers and manufacturers in their decision making are shown. The article concludes with a reference to current developments and offers a perspective on the new European medical device regulations MDR/IVDR (Medical Device Regulation/In-Vitro Diagnostic Regulation) as well as on future challenges regarding medical apps.

Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Standards and Guidelines. Final rule.

We, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board or Board), are revising and updating, in a single rulemaking, our standards for electronic and information technology developed, procured, maintained, or used by Federal agencies covered by section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as well as our guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment covered by Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934. The revisions and updates to the section 508-based standards and section 255-based guidelines are intended to ensure that information and communication technology covered by the respective statutes is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

Medical device software: defining key terms.

INTRODUCTION: one of the areas of significant growth in medical devices has been the role of software - as an integral component of a medical device, as a standalone device and more recently as applications on mobile devices. The risk related to a malfunction of the standalone software used within healthcare is in itself not a criterion for its qualification or not as a medical device. It is therefore, necessary to clarify some criteria for the qualification of stand-alone software as medical devices Materials and methods: Ukrainian, European Union, United States of America legislation, Guidelines developed by European Commission and Food and Drug Administration's, recommendations represented by international voluntary group and scientific works. This article is based on dialectical, comparative, analytic, synthetic and comprehensive research methods. CONCLUSION: the legal regulation of software which is used for medical purpose in Ukraine limited to one definition. In European Union and United States of America were developed and applying special guidelines that help developers, manufactures and end users to difference software on types standing on medical purpose criteria. Software becomes more and more incorporated into medical devices. Developers and manufacturers may not have initially appreciated potential risks to patients and users such situation could have dangerous results for patients or users. It is necessary to develop and adopt the legislation that will intend to define the criteria for the qualification of medical device software and the application of the classification criteria to such software, provide some illustrative examples and step by step recommendations to qualify software as medical device.

Certain aspects on medical devices software law regulation.

INTRODUCTION: some kind of easiness of entry in creating software products on various computing platforms has led to such products being made available perhaps without due consideration of potential risks to users and patients and the most valuable reason for this have been lack of regulatory clarity. Some key points on legal regulation of abovementioned sphere is a base of this study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ukrainian legislation, European Union`s Guidelines on the qualification and classification of standalone software; Guidance for the Content of Premarket Submissions for Software Contained in Medical Devices that works in United States of America. Article is based on dialectical, comparative, analytic, synthetic and comprehensive research methods. CONCLUSION: in accordance with Ukrainian legislation, software that has a medical purpose could be a medical device. Ukrainian legislation which is established on European Union Medical Devices Directives divide all medical devices on classes. But there aren't any special recommendations or advices on classifications for software medical devices in Ukraine. It is necessary to develop and adopt guidelines on the qualification and classification of medical device software in Ukraine especially considering the harmonization of Ukrainian legislation with the EU legislation, develop special rules for the application of the national mark of conformity for medical device software and defined the « responsible organization ¼ for the medical device software approval process.

Medical Devices; Neurological Devices; Classification of the Computerized Cognitive Assessment Aid. Final order.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the computerized cognitive assessment aid into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order, and will be part of the codified language for the computerized cognitive assessment aid's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

Legal Considerations for Electronic Health Records.

Electronic health record (EHR) solutions provide many potential benefits for dental practices, whether those programs run internally on a dental practice's computers or are cloud-based solutions. However, these programs also create new risks for a dental practice, which may be mitigated through due diligence and adequate contractual provisions to ensure protection for dentists. This article addresses the legal considerations associated with a dentist entering into a service contract with an EHR vendor.

Medical devices; neurological devices; classification of the neuropsychiatric interpretive electroencephalograph assessment aid. Final order.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the neuropsychiatric interpretive electroencephalograph (EEG) assessment aid into class II (special controls). The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

Medicare program; physicians' referrals to health care entities with which they have financial relationships: exception for certain electronic health records arrangements. Final rule.

This final rule revises the exception to the physician self-referral law that permits certain arrangements involving the donation of electronic health records items and services. Specifically, this final rule extends the expiration date of the exception to December 31, 2021, excludes laboratory companies from the types of entities that may donate electronic health records items and services, updates the provision under which electronic health records software is deemed interoperable, removes the electronic prescribing capability requirement, and clarifies the requirement prohibiting any action that limits or restricts the use, compatibility, or interoperability of donated items or services.

Medicare and state health care programs: fraud and abuse; electronic health records safe harbor under the anti-kickback statute. Final rule.

In this final rule, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) amends the safe harbor regulation concerning electronic health records items and services, which defines certain conduct that is protected from liability under the Federal anti-kickback statute, section 1128B(b) of the Social Security Act (the Act). Amendments include updating the provision under which electronic health records software is deemed interoperable; removing the electronic prescribing capability requirement; extending the sunset provision until December 31, 2021; limiting the scope of protected donors to exclude laboratory companies; and clarifying the condition that prohibits a donor from taking any action to limit or restrict the use, compatibility, or interoperability of the donated items or services.

Software as a medical device: regulatory critical issues.

The revised Medical Device Directive has been adopted by the EU in 2010. A major change is that software for certain purposes is now considered a medical device. This entails that a new view needs to be developed on the design, development, evaluation and post-market surveillance of medical software that meets the definition of a medical device. This paper identifies some issues at stake and discusses them.