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.

Compilation of International Standards and Regulatory Guidance Documents for Evaluation of Biomaterials, Medical Devices, and 3-D Printed and Regenerative Medicine Products.

The development of biomaterials, medical device components, finished medical products, and 3-D printed and regenerative medicine products is governed by a variety of international and country-specific standards and guidelines. Of greatest importance to planning, executing, and reporting biocompatibility, safety and efficacy studies for most biomaterials and medical components or products are the International Organization for Standardization guidelines, U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, ASTM International, and Conformité Européenne (European Conformity) marking. The International Medical Device Regulators Forum publishes harmonized standards similar to the International Council for Harmonization. Good Laboratory Practices are applicable and guidance documents for the development of drugs and biologics can also be relevant to biomaterials, medical device components, and medical products and more recently to products produced by 3-D printing or additive manufacturing. Regenerative products may have medical device-based scaffolding and may be treated as biologics, reflecting the cell and tissue components. This compilation of international standards and guidelines provides toxicologic pathologists, toxicologists, bioengineers, and allied professionals with an overview of and source for important regulatory documents that may apply to the nonclinical development of their products.

Results of an exploratory survey within ESTS membership in 2022 on current trend of robotic-assisted thoracic surgery and its training perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) is increasingly used in our specialty. We surveyed European Society of Thoracic Surgeons membership with the objective to determine current status of robotic thoracic surgery practice including training perspectives. METHODS: A survey of 17 questions was rolled out with 1 surgeon per unit responses considered as acceptable. RESULTS: A total of 174 responses were obtained; 56% (97) were board-certified thoracic surgeons; 28% (49) were unit heads. Most responses came from Italy (20); 22% (38) had no robot in their institutions, 31% (54) had limited access and only 17% (30) had full access including proctoring. Da Vinci Xi was the commonest system in 56% (96) centres, 25% (41) of them had dual console in all systems, whereas RATS simulator was available only in half (51.18% or 87). Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) was the most commonly adopted surgical approach in 81% of centres (139), followed by thoracotomy in 67% (115) and RATS in 36% (62); 39% spent their training time on robotic simulator for training, 51% on robotic wet/dry lab, which being no significantly different to 46-59% who had training on VATS platform. There was indeed huge overlap between simulator models or varieties usage; 52% (90) reported of robotic surgery not a part of training curriculum with no plans to introduce it in future. Overall, 51.5% (89) responded of VATS experience being helpful in robotic training in view of familiarity with minimally invasive surgery anatomical views and dissection; 71% (124) reported that future thoracic surgeons should be proficient in both VATS and RATS. Half of the respondents found no difference in earlier chest drain removal with either approach (90), 35% (60) reported no difference in postoperative pain and 49% (84) found no difference in hospital stay; 52% (90) observed better lymph node harvest by RATS. CONCLUSIONS: Survey concluded on a positive response with at least 71% (123) surgeons recommending to adopt robotics in future.

A new form of irritant rhinitis to filtering facepiece particle (FFP) masks (FFP2/N95/KN95 respirators) during COVID-19 pandemic.

Filtering facepiece particle (FFP) masks are important items of personal protective equipment in fighting COVID-19 pandemic. They shall protect the wearer of the mask from particles, droplets, and aerosols, but they also can prevent the spread of aerosol-transmitted viruses if the wearer becomes infected. Most often, FFP respirators consist of multiple layers of non-woven fabric made from polypropylene. Worldwide, FFP respirators are subject to various regulatory standards that specify physical properties and performance characteristics. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, health authorities have temporarily repealed standards for respirators. We report on 46 patients that presented with rhinitis-like symptoms strongly associated to the use of FFP masks. Some of them were obliged to use FFP masks in their work environment. Nasal endoscopy showed edemata of the nasal mucosa that significantly decreased after a period of non-use of FFP masks. Subjectively reported symptom levels decreased after cessation of FFP use for 3 or more days. The presence of polypropylene fibres isolated from nasal rinsing solution was significantly associated with the use of FFP masks in our patients. Material safety and performance deregulation of FFP masks can pose a health risk. Thus, especially health care professionals and other individuals with occupational need for FFP masks should be aware of possible hazards that come with COVID-19 pandemic protection measures.

Medical devices in allergy practice.

Medical devices provide people with some health benefits in terms of diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and monitoring of disease processes. Different medical specialties use varieties of medical devices more or less specific for them. Allergology is an interdisciplinary field of medical science and teaches that allergic reactions are of systemic nature but can express themselves at the level of different organs across the life cycle of an individual. Subsequently, medical devices used in allergology could be regarded as: 1) general, servicing the integral diagnostic and management principles and features of allergology, and 2) organ specific, which are shared by organ specific disciplines like pulmonology, otorhinolaryngology, dermatology, and others. The present position paper of the World Allergy Organization (WAO) is meant to be the first integral document providing structured information on medical devices in allergology used in daily routine but also needed for sophisticated diagnostic purposes and modern disease management. It is supposed to contribute to the transformation of the health care system into integrated care pathways for interrelated comorbidities.

Drugs and Devices: Comparison of European and U.S. Approval Processes.

The regulation of medical drugs and devices involves competing goals of assuring safety and efficacy while providing rapid movement of innovative therapies through the investigative and regulatory processes as quickly as possible. The United States and the European Union approach these challenges in different ways. Whereas the United States has always relied on a strictly centralized process through 1 agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Commission synchronized the regulations of 28 different countries as they combined to create the European Union. The FDA historically developed as a consumer protection agency, whereas the regulations from the European Commission arose out of a need to harmonize inter-state commercial interests while preserving national "autonomy." Thus, whereas the FDA has the advantages of centralization and common rules, the European Union regulates medical drug and device approvals through a network of centralized and decentralized agencies throughout its member states. This study explores some of the similarities and differences in European and U.S. regulation of drugs and devices, and discusses challenges facing each.

From biomarkers to medical tests: the changing landscape of test evaluation.

Regulators and healthcare payers are increasingly demanding evidence that biomarkers deliver patient benefits to justify their use in clinical practice. Laboratory professionals need to be familiar with these evidence requirements to better engage in biomarker research and decisions about their appropriate use. This paper by a multidisciplinary group of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine describes the pathway of a laboratory assay measuring a biomarker to becoming a medically useful test. We define the key terms, principles and components of the test evaluation process. Unlike previously described linearly staged models, we illustrate how the essential components of analytical and clinical performances, clinical and cost-effectiveness and the broader impact of testing assemble in a dynamic cycle. We highlight the importance of defining clinical goals and how the intended application of the biomarker in the clinical pathway should drive each component of test evaluation. This approach emphasizes the interaction of the different components, and that clinical effectiveness data should be fed back to refine analytical and clinical performances to achieve improved outcomes. The framework aims to support the understanding of key stakeholders. The laboratory profession needs to strengthen collaboration with industry and experts in evidence-based medicine, regulatory bodies and policy makers for better decisions about the use of new and existing medical tests.