More than red tape: exploring complexity in medical device regulatory affairs.

Introduction: This study investigates the complexity of regulatory affairs in the medical device industry, a critical factor influencing market access and patient care. Methods: Through qualitative research, we sought expert insights to understand the factors contributing to this complexity. The study involved semi-structured interviews with 28 professionals from medical device companies, specializing in various aspects of regulatory affairs. These interviews were analyzed using a mix of qualitative coding and natural language processing (NLP) techniques. Results: The findings reveal key sources of complexity within the regulatory landscape, divided into five domains: (1) regulatory language complexity, (2) intricacies within the regulatory process, (3) global-level complexities, (4) database-related considerations, and (5) product-level issues. Discussion: The participants highlighted the need for strategies to streamline regulatory compliance, enhance interactions between regulatory bodies and industry players, and develop adaptable frameworks for rapid technological advancements. Emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration and increased transparency, the study concludes that these elements are vital for establishing coherent and effective regulatory procedures in the medical device sector.

Regulatory Frameworks for AI-Enabled Medical Device Software in China: Comparative Analysis and Review of Implications for Global Manufacturer.

The China State Council released the new generation artificial intelligence (AI) development plan, outlining China's ambitious aspiration to assume global leadership in AI by the year 2030. This initiative underscores the extensive applicability of AI across diverse domains, including manufacturing, law, and medicine. With China establishing itself as a major producer and consumer of medical devices, there has been a notable increase in software registrations. This study aims to study the proliferation of health care-related software development within China. This work presents an overview of the Chinese regulatory framework for medical device software. The analysis covers both software as a medical device and software in a medical device. A comparative approach is employed to examine the regulations governing medical devices with AI and machine learning in China, the United States, and Europe. The study highlights the significant proliferation of health care-related software development within China, which has led to an increased demand for comprehensive regulatory guidance, particularly for international manufacturers. The comparative analysis reveals distinct regulatory frameworks and requirements across the three regions. This paper provides a useful outline of the current state of regulations for medical software in China and identifies the regulatory challenges posed by the rapid advancements in AI and machine learning technologies. Understanding these challenges is crucial for international manufacturers and stakeholders aiming to navigate the complex regulatory landscape.

Tracking the Presence of Software as a Medical Device in US Food and Drug Administration Databases: Retrospective Data Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Software as a medical device (SaMD) has gained the attention of medical device regulatory bodies as the prospects of standalone software for use in diagnositic and therapeutic settings have increased. However, to date, figures related to SaMD have not been made available by regulators, which limits the understanding of how prevalent these devices are and what actions should be taken to regulate them. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to empirically evaluate the market approvals and clearances related to SaMD and identify adverse incidents related to these devices. METHODS: Using databases managed by the US medical device regulator, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we identified the counts of SaMD registered with the FDA since 2016 through the use of product codes, mapped the path SaMD takes toward classification, and recorded adverse events. RESULTS: SaMD does not seem to be registered at a rate dissimilar to that of other medical devices; thus, adverse events for SaMD only comprise a small portion of the total reported number. CONCLUSIONS: Although SaMD has been identified in the literature as an area of development, our analysis suggests that this growth has been modest. These devices are overwhelmingly classified as moderate to high risk, and they take a very particular path to that classification. The digital revolution in health care is less pronounced when evidence related to SaMD is considered. In general, the addition of SaMD to the medical device market seems to mimic that of other medical devices.